|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I] Old Addictions
| [I] Old Addictions [message #286494] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 04:10 |
|
Now that the stress of my old job is gone, I feel that it
is okay to have a drink now & then - and I confess that
my now & then are currently blending into a continuous
blurr (okay, it's not that bad, but the tendency is there).
So, this will have to stop - although maybe not just this
very actual minute.
What I wish to say is that I used to smoke, lo these many
years ago (20, now), and when I drink, I again want a
smoke. It was a comfort & a pleasure, it was. Yes.
I can see usenet as a given-up-but-not-forgotten sort
of addiction. I can only imagine what some of the given
up socially proscribed addictions must be like. The ones
that are supposed to be more intractable than the nicotine
or alcohol ones.
Also - we were watching a strong man competition,
between soccer games today, and, as I have noticed
before it is possible to obsess about any human activity.
I suspect the brain chemistry will say that there is an
empirical difference between an bona fide addiction,
such as ciggies or heroin, and an obsession such as
newgroups or lifting cars as many times as you can
before your blood vessels pop on the top of your
head. But from the outside, they seem to be very
similar.[2]
April.
Glad my SOGP no longer smokes, either, or I'd
be into his deck like a dirty shirt.[1]
[1] - as the disc anthorpolical personification
might say - "WHY A *DIRTY* SHIRT?"
[2] - even from the inside, now that I think about
the trend and tenor of this post.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #286533 ] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 09:14 |
|
"April Goodwin-Smith" <agoodwinsmith [at] shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:HYKig.5416$iF6.1223 [at] pd7tw2no...
> Now that the stress of my old job is gone, I feel that it
> is okay to have a drink now & then - and I confess that
> my now & then are currently blending into a continuous
> blurr (okay, it's not that bad, but the tendency is there).
>
> So, this will have to stop - although maybe not just this
> very actual minute.
>
you and me both. I know it is a problem when I start wondering if it is a
problem. I don't drink very much at one time, but I do have wine most nights
and the alcohol units sure clock up. And then there's the occasional most of
a bottle night. It adds up.
> What I wish to say is that I used to smoke, lo these many
> years ago (20, now), and when I drink, I again want a
> smoke. It was a comfort & a pleasure, it was. Yes.
Also born again breather here. But I am never tempted to consider smoking
again. I was a terrible recividist and had to give up about 10 times before
it finally stuck. And every backslide was miserable, I couldn't enjoy the
cigs I went back to, knowing I'd decided not to smoke anymore. I won't put
myself through that again. For about 10 nice smokes. The first 10 would make
me sick, the next ten I'd be wondering why I used to gasp for them, the next
10 I'd claim I could take or leave (the nice smokes) and the next 10 would
have me groaning, again, with the realisation that I was a sucker and
hooked.
>
> I can see usenet as a given-up-but-not-forgotten sort
> of addiction. I can only imagine what some of the given
> up socially proscribed addictions must be like. The ones
> that are supposed to be more intractable than the nicotine
> or alcohol ones.
which ones? I've heard more than once that nicotine is harder to kick than
heroin. Though both times from heroin abuse recoverers who perhaps
transferred a lot of their longing onto the fags and then found that
impossible to let go of too.
>
> Also - we were watching a strong man competition,
> between soccer games today, and, as I have noticed
> before it is possible to obsess about any human activity.
obsessions and addictions, I think they must be a bit different but I can't
quite see how. It's a case of quacking like a duck. There is probably a
check list somewhere
Do you feel compelled to do this?
Is your life centered round this?
Does it cost you more money than you can spare?
Has it compromised your relationships?
Are you using this to avoid other aspects of life? _this one may be the key
I'm sure an addiction counsellor will be along any minute to put us right.
>
> I suspect the brain chemistry will say that there is an
> empirical difference between an bona fide addiction,
> such as ciggies or heroin, and an obsession such as
> newgroups or lifting cars as many times as you can
> before your blood vessels pop on the top of your
> head. But from the outside, they seem to be very
> similar.[2]
brains I dunno. There are receptors for various opiates and nicotine which
people like to get tickled. But there are also chemicals associated with
physical activity, or stress or starvation or sex all of which could be part
of the pathways that get us fast tracked into an addiction/compulsion
There is a trend in US I think to treat compulsive behaviours as addictions.
There are certainly 12 step programmes for gambling, narcotics, overeating,
sex as well as alcohol. I don't know about exercise addiction, whether it's
all programmed up yet
>
Louise
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #286590 ] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 14:10 |
|
April Goodwin-Smith agoodwinsmith [at] shaw.ca wrote in
<HYKig.5416$iF6.1223 [at] pd7tw2no>:
>
> I suspect the brain chemistry will say that there is an
> empirical difference between an bona fide addiction,
> such as ciggies or heroin, and an obsession such as
> newgroups or lifting cars as many times as you can
> before your blood vessels pop on the top of your
> head. But from the outside, they seem to be very
> similar.
>
I seem to from habits very easily, to the extent that they are
indistinguishable from addiction. Currently I'm down to two genuine
addictions [1] and three "habitual addictions" [2]. I have to work at it
though. I try not to reread books more than once a year, I never listen to
the same music more than once a week, I drink alcohol only on special
occasions and keep those at least a fortnight apart. In fact I have quite
a lot of habits designed to stop myself getting addicted to things.
[1] smoking and caffeine
[2] Usenet, football, African music
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #286594 ] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 15:44 |
|
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:14:42 +0100, Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
> I don't know about exercise addiction, whether it's
> all programmed up yet
I don't know that it ever will, it being Accepted Wisdom that exercise is
Good For You.
I can just see the meeting though:
A skinny, muscular person walks hesitantly up front and says "My name is
Sam and I exercise too much." The audience, well upholstered couch
potatoes all chorous "Hi, Sam!"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #286644 ] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 19:55 |
|
"Louise Mac Mahon" <louise [at] happybabysling.com> wrote in message
news:4f1u7aF1fcla1U1 [at] individual.net...
>
<snip>
> > I can see usenet as a given-up-but-not-forgotten sort
> > of addiction. I can only imagine what some of the given
> > up socially proscribed addictions must be like. The ones
> > that are supposed to be more intractable than the nicotine
> > or alcohol ones.
>
> which ones? I've heard more than once that nicotine is harder to kick than
> heroin. Though both times from heroin abuse recoverers who perhaps
> transferred a lot of their longing onto the fags and then found that
> impossible to let go of too.
> >
Well, no less of an authority than Ozzy Ozbourne, who has kicked more
addictions than any 3 typical ROCK STARS, has said quite emphatically that
of all the things he kicked (including both heroin and alcohol), that the
cigarettes were by far the most difficult - and that it wasn't really even
close.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #286662 ] |
So, 11 Juni 2006 20:44 |
|
Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
> "April Goodwin-Smith" <agoodwinsmith [at] shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:HYKig.5416$iF6.1223 [at] pd7tw2no...
>
>>Now that the stress of my old job is gone, I feel that it
>>is okay to have a drink now & then - and I confess that
>>my now & then are currently blending into a continuous
>>blurr (okay, it's not that bad, but the tendency is there).
>>
>>So, this will have to stop - although maybe not just this
>>very actual minute.
>>
>
>
> you and me both. I know it is a problem when I start wondering if it is a
> problem. I don't drink very much at one time, but I do have wine most nights
> and the alcohol units sure clock up. And then there's the occasional most of
> a bottle night. It adds up.
>
>
>>What I wish to say is that I used to smoke, lo these many
>>years ago (20, now), and when I drink, I again want a
>>smoke. It was a comfort & a pleasure, it was. Yes.
>
>
> Also born again breather here. But I am never tempted to consider smoking
> again. I was a terrible recividist and had to give up about 10 times before
> it finally stuck. And every backslide was miserable, I couldn't enjoy the
> cigs I went back to, knowing I'd decided not to smoke anymore. I won't put
> myself through that again. For about 10 nice smokes. The first 10 would make
> me sick, the next ten I'd be wondering why I used to gasp for them, the next
> 10 I'd claim I could take or leave (the nice smokes) and the next 10 would
> have me groaning, again, with the realisation that I was a sucker and
> hooked.
>
>>I can see usenet as a given-up-but-not-forgotten sort
>>of addiction. I can only imagine what some of the given
>>up socially proscribed addictions must be like. The ones
>>that are supposed to be more intractable than the nicotine
>>or alcohol ones.
>
>
> which ones? I've heard more than once that nicotine is harder to kick than
> heroin. Though both times from heroin abuse recoverers who perhaps
> transferred a lot of their longing onto the fags and then found that
> impossible to let go of too.
>
When I was researching for a presentation last fall I did come across
a chart showing addiction stuff, like difficulty of quitting various
substances, and tobacco scored highest.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #286767 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 00:10 |
|
in article HYKig.5416$iF6.1223 [at] pd7tw2no, April Goodwin-Smith at
agoodwinsmith [at] shaw.ca wrote on 10/06/2006 7:10 PM:
> Now that the stress of my old job is gone, I feel that it
> is okay to have a drink now & then - and I confess that
> my now & then are currently blending into a continuous
> blurr (okay, it's not that bad, but the tendency is there).
>
> So, this will have to stop - although maybe not just this
> very actual minute.
>
> What I wish to say is that I used to smoke, lo these many
> years ago (20, now), and when I drink, I again want a
> smoke. It was a comfort & a pleasure, it was. Yes.
>
> I can see usenet as a given-up-but-not-forgotten sort
> of addiction. I can only imagine what some of the given
> up socially proscribed addictions must be like. The ones
> that are supposed to be more intractable than the nicotine
> or alcohol ones.
Dr. Everard Koop, a very wise man, has said that nicotine is a lot harder to
quit than people think and heroin a lot easier, so that they work out at
about the same. I know that stopping smoking was the hardest and nastiest
thing I've ever had to do. The withdrawal made me physically ill for about
three weeks, and I still get the wrong reaction when I smell other people's
smoke - not "That's disgusting!", but "That smells good...". Even though I
get entirely the right reaction when I smell woodsmoke - "Yuck!", closely
followed by "cough, cough, wheeze..."
>
> Also - we were watching a strong man competition,
> between soccer games today, and, as I have noticed
> before it is possible to obsess about any human activity.
>
> I suspect the brain chemistry will say that there is an
> empirical difference between an bona fide addiction,
> such as ciggies or heroin, and an obsession such as
> newgroups or lifting cars as many times as you can
> before your blood vessels pop on the top of your
> head. But from the outside, they seem to be very
> similar.[2]
People talk about endorphins produced by physical stress having much the
same effect as opiates because they fill the same receptors, and
non-exercisers sometimes refer to people who take lots of exercise as
endorphin junkies. It also seems to be correct now to see gambling as an
addiction, so why not newsgroups?
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #286791 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 00:55 |
|
"Louise Mac Mahon" wrote ...
> "April Goodwin-Smith" wrote...
<snip>
>> What I wish to say is that I used to smoke, lo these many
>> years ago (20, now), and when I drink, I again want a
>> smoke. It was a comfort & a pleasure, it was. Yes.
>
> Also born again breather here. But I am never tempted to
> consider smoking again.
I wish. That yearning for a smokie-dokie is always waiting
right there at the two-drink boundary (the point where choice
is gleefully flung into the bay, and impulses are let out for an
airing.)
>
> I was a terrible recividist and had to give up about 10 times
> before it finally stuck.
I wasn't able to give up smoking by "cutting down" - all that did
was make me absolutely rivetted on the next opportunity to
have a smoke. What worked for me was stopping cold. It
boiled it down to just one cigarette - I was not going to have
the next cigarette. Much smaller problem.
>
> And every backslide was miserable, I couldn't enjoy the cigs
> I went back to, knowing I'd decided not to smoke anymore. I
> won't put myself through that again. <snip 10 by 10 back into
> the arms of Nicotinia>
>
Me, I have occasionally had a drag, and enjoyed it, and even
a whole smoke (although I haven't done either for 10 years),
and if I let it go to two or more - I'm back to a pack day in
less than a week. Did that once (job stress, again), and it took
another 3 years to quit again - and again by saying no to the next.
>>
>> I can only imagine what some of the given up socially proscribed
>> addictions must be like. The ones that are supposed to be more
>> intractable than the nicotine or alcohol ones.
>
> which ones? I've heard more than once that nicotine is harder
> to kick than heroin.
I've heard that crack is wicked regarding the difficulty of quitting.
>
> Though both times from heroin abuse recoverers who perhaps transferred a
> lot of their longing onto the fags and then found that impossible to let
> go of too.
>
That would be tough - ciggies really are an effective crutch, and
they deliver comfort on demand. (At least, they do for me.) If one
added the burden of ciggies being a stand-in for something else,
as well, that would be a hard thing to let go.
<snip>
>> I suspect the brain chemistry will say that there is an empirical
>> difference between an bona fide addiction, and an obsession
>
<snip>
> There is a trend in US I think to treat compulsive behaviours as
> addictions.
If we extend the trend to Canada - gambling is a big focus of
addictions therapy right now. I think that is based on guilt by
the part of people who are benefitting from the gambling
behaviour - many gov't funded programs derive some or
all of their revenues from our legalized gambling.
I wonder if a lot of our treatment programs aren't motivated
by a "there but for the grace of Rocky" shudder.
April.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #286793 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 00:55 |
|
"Eric Jarvis" wrote ...
> April Goodwin-Smith wrote :
>> I suspect the brain chemistry will say that there is an empirical
>> difference between an bona fide addiction and an obsession
> I seem to from habits very easily, to the extent that they are
> indistinguishable from addiction. <snip> In fact I have quite
> a lot of habits designed to stop myself getting addicted to things.
>
In fact (she said portentiously), you have an addiction to not
having an addiction - yes? :)
I agree with you though, addictive behaviours are very easy for
me to form. I think part of it may be that one enters a kind of
trance-like state, without a past or future, just an eternal now
which is pretty comfortable. I think the addiction part is/are all
the things one does to resist leaving that state, or to get back
to that state.
Even solitare can work like that for me - the ones that are
sure winners every hand are the best.
April.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #286794 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 00:55 |
|
"peachy ashie passion" wrote...
> Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
>> "April Goodwin-Smith" wrote ...
<snip>
>>>when I drink, I again want a smoke. It was a comfort
>>>& a pleasure, it was. Yes.
>> Also born again breather here. <snip>
>>> I can only imagine what some of the given up socially
>>> proscribed addictions must be like. The ones that are
>>> supposed to be more intractable than nicotine or alcohol.
>> which ones? I've heard more than once that nicotine is
>> harder to kick than heroin.
>
> When I was researching for a presentation last fall I did come
> across a chart showing addiction stuff, like difficulty of quitting
> various substances, and tobacco scored highest.
>
Shmoe said a similar thing. On the one hand - I want to know how
they know, and what criteria they are using as evidence of difficulty.
But on the other hand I may just take my swelled head away and
pat myself on the back for being such a tough cookie.
:)
April.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #286868 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 05:43 |
|
April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
> I wonder if a lot of our treatment programs aren't motivated
> by a "there but for the grace of Rocky" shudder.
Let me remind you that I don't believe in Gods that have names humans
can pronounce, therefore I am, as a God, by definition, an impostor.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #286903 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 09:58 |
|
Rocky Frisco wrote:
> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
>
>> I wonder if a lot of our treatment programs aren't motivated
>> by a "there but for the grace of Rocky" shudder.
>
>
> Let me remind you that I don't believe in Gods that have names humans
> can pronounce, therefore I am, as a God, by definition, an impostor.
Cogito, ergo Rocky?
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #286975 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 15:15 |
|
Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
>
>> I wonder if a lot of our treatment programs aren't motivated
>> by a "there but for the grace of Rocky" shudder.
>
> Let me remind you that I don't believe in Gods that have names humans
> can pronounce, therefore I am, as a God, by definition, an impostor.
Does that make Aztec gods more genuine than the rest?
Regards, respecting Xiuhtecuhtle, just in case,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #287053 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 19:05 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let me remind you that I don't believe in Gods that have names humans
>> can pronounce, therefore I am, as a God, by definition, an impostor.
>
> Does that make Aztec gods more genuine than the rest?
>
> Regards, respecting Xiuhtecuhtle, just in case,
There was a guy called Xokonoshtletl who did a presentation at the
ethnographic museum in Stockholm a few years ago. It was rather interesting.
Um.
Yeah.
I don't remember much of it.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #287086 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 20:35 |
|
Torak wrote:
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>
>> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if a lot of our treatment programs aren't motivated
>>> by a "there but for the grace of Rocky" shudder.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let me remind you that I don't believe in Gods that have names humans
>> can pronounce, therefore I am, as a God, by definition, an impostor.
>
>
> Cogito, ergo Rocky?
Saw a funny cartoon this morning in a magazine while having a broken
tooth glued back on. Was a big US Seal with the "E Pluribus Unum"
slogan, with a frowning fat cop standing by it saying, "English Only."
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" (was: Old Addictions) [message #287087 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 20:40 |
|
Rocky Frisco wrote:
>
> Saw a funny cartoon this morning in a magazine while having a broken
> tooth glued back on. Was a big US Seal with the "E Pluribus Unum"
> slogan, with a frowning fat cop standing by it saying, "English Only."
Can you (or another American) clarify something for me? I thought USA
had no official language, and English was used for traditional reasons.
I recall reading something to the effect that in some areas Spenish is
used as the "official" language.
Is that not the case?
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #287104 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 21:16 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if a lot of our treatment programs aren't motivated
>>> by a "there but for the grace of Rocky" shudder.
>>
>>
>> Let me remind you that I don't believe in Gods that have names humans
>> can pronounce, therefore I am, as a God, by definition, an impostor.
>
>
> Does that make Aztec gods more genuine than the rest?
>
> Regards, respecting Xiuhtecuhtle, just in case,
Um. nope. Their names could be pronounced quite readily, just not
spelled pronouncably in Roman English.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #287146 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 23:06 |
|
peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
> > which ones? I've heard more than once that nicotine is harder to kick than
> > heroin. Though both times from heroin abuse recoverers who perhaps
> > transferred a lot of their longing onto the fags and then found that
> > impossible to let go of too.
>
> When I was researching for a presentation last fall I did come across
> a chart showing addiction stuff, like difficulty of quitting various
> substances, and tobacco scored highest.
Yes, but a large part of this could be that nicotine addiction is an
acceptable foible in society, and heroin addiction makes you an
automatic outcaste.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #287148 ] |
Mo, 12 Juni 2006 23:07 |
|
Jessie C <munged [at] nospam.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:14:42 +0100, Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
>
> > I don't know about exercise addiction, whether it's
> > all programmed up yet
>
> I don't know that it ever will, it being Accepted Wisdom that exercise is
> Good For You.
Oh, there's such a thing. From what I've heard, recidivist amateur
marathon runners often suffer from it. It can be bad for your hormone
balance, apparently.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" (was: Old Addictions) [message #287186 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 00:35 |
|
Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>>
>> Saw a funny cartoon this morning in a magazine while having a broken
>> tooth glued back on. Was a big US Seal with the "E Pluribus Unum"
>> slogan, with a frowning fat cop standing by it saying, "English
>> Only."
>
> Can you (or another American) clarify something for me? I thought USA
> had no official language, and English was used for traditional
> reasons. I recall reading something to the effect that in some areas
> Spenish is used as the "official" language.
>
> Is that not the case?
It's the case, but the current government and a bunch of senators are
working hard to overturn that, and make English the official language. It's
part of the "US vs. Them" Bush doctrine, as I see it.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #287190 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 00:41 |
|
"Richard Bos" <raltbos [at] xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:448dc267.11074250 [at] news.xs4all.nl...
> peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
>> > which ones? I've heard more than once that nicotine is harder to
>> > kick than
>> > heroin. Though both times from heroin abuse recoverers who perhaps
>> > transferred a lot of their longing onto the fags and then found
>> > that
>> > impossible to let go of too.
>>
>> When I was researching for a presentation last fall I did come
>> across
>> a chart showing addiction stuff, like difficulty of quitting various
>> substances, and tobacco scored highest.
>
> Yes, but a large part of this could be that nicotine addiction is an
> acceptable foible in society, and heroin addiction makes you an
> automatic outcaste.
Well they do say that if Nicotine was discovered today it would be
instantly banned because of the addiction aspect.
Steve
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #287196 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 00:50 |
|
Orjan Westin wrote:
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>
>>Saw a funny cartoon this morning in a magazine while having a broken
>>tooth glued back on. Was a big US Seal with the "E Pluribus Unum"
>>slogan, with a frowning fat cop standing by it saying, "English Only."
>
>
> Can you (or another American) clarify something for me? I thought USA
> had no official language, and English was used for traditional reasons.
> I recall reading something to the effect that in some areas Spenish is
> used as the "official" language.
>
> Is that not the case?
This is not an official answer, just what I think is so: I think you are
correct that there's no official language here, especially since what we
speak isn't really English. I'm also pretty sure that there's no place
in the USA where Spanish is official. ICBW
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #287203 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 01:01 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>>
>> Can you (or another American) clarify something for me? I thought USA
>> had no official language, and English was used for traditional
>> reasons. I recall reading something to the effect that in some areas
>> Spenish is used as the "official" language.
>>
>> Is that not the case?
>
> It's the case, but the current government and a bunch of senators are
> working hard to overturn that, and make English the official language.
> It's part of the "US vs. Them" Bush doctrine, as I see it.
I don't see why not, though. I mean, English is the de facto national
language, so why not codify it? I mean, it should be possible to
designate relevant languages - Spanish, the various Indian languages -
as official languages as well, rather like Sweden has done with Finnish
and Sami. Shouldn't it?
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #287207 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 01:14 |
|
In article <3tijg.221464$5Z.200225 [at] dukeread02>, rocknatural [at] gmail.com
says...
> Saw a funny cartoon this morning in a magazine while having a broken
> tooth glued back on. Was a big US Seal with the "E Pluribus Unum"
> slogan, with a frowning fat cop standing by it saying, "English Only."
The thing about that motto that I like is that it actually comes from a
recipe (in verse) for salad. I wonder how many solemnly reading that off
the seal are thinking about lightly dressed well tossed vegetables.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" (was: Old Addictions) [message #287211 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 01:23 |
|
In article <4f5qo5F1h800iU1 [at] individual.net>, nospam [at] cunobaros.com
says...
> Can you (or another American) clarify something for me? I thought USA
> had no official language, and English was used for traditional reasons.
> I recall reading something to the effect that in some areas Spenish is
> used as the "official" language.
>
> Is that not the case?
Not American, so not authoritative. But I am reasonably certain that
there is no "official" language in the US. The Constitution etc are, of
course, in Englisn, and the main authorities have always debated,
published and legiuslated in English. At the time the country was being
founded, there was a sizeable minority of "Pennslyvania Dutch" who were
German speaking. Rather than offend this group, they dropped the
question.
In several jurisdictions within the US, there is a requrement that laws,
officail documents etc. be published in all the languages spoken by
more than X% of the population. In large swathes of some regions,
Hispanics exceed X by a large margin, so all offcial document are
available in Spanish as well as English and all major offices employ
Spanish speakers. This means that (over the objections of some die-
hards) it is possible to conduct a full everyday life entirely in
Spanish, not usually possible in other languages.
There is now a proposal to make English the official language, as a
precursor to restricting benefits to those who cannot speak it (though
some proposers deny this). Fortunately, I don't think it has the
necessary momentum.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #287214 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 01:32 |
|
In article <Ymmjg.2104$YI3.1499 [at] amstwist00>, perry_awm [at] hotmail.com
says...
> > It's the case, but the current government and a bunch of senators are
> > working hard to overturn that, and make English the official language.
> > It's part of the "US vs. Them" Bush doctrine, as I see it.
>
> I don't see why not, though. I mean, English is the de facto national
> language, so why not codify it? I mean, it should be possible to
> designate relevant languages - Spanish, the various Indian languages -
> as official languages as well, rather like Sweden has done with Finnish
> and Sami. Shouldn't it?
In theory, in a reasonable world, what you say might be true. In the
real world, they are preparing a "totally logical" club with which to
hammer people who, by pure chance, happen to be different from
themselves and whom they percieve as interlopers. It is the same sort of
dirty trick as suggesting that the "separate development" of Apartheid
was equal development in differeent places.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" (was: Old Addictions) [message #287221 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 01:44 |
|
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:35:10 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
> It's the case, but the current government and a bunch of senators are
> working hard to overturn that, and make English the official language.
> It's part of the "US vs. Them" Bush doctrine, as I see it.
Whose going to teach GW? :)
*duck*
Julian
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #287235 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 02:37 |
|
Alec Cawley wrote:
>It is the same
> sort of dirty trick as suggesting that the "separate development"
> of Apartheid was equal development in differeent places.
I was talking with a colleague who teaches in an inner city school with
mostly urban black students; he tells me he's been trying to explain that
they are in de facto segregated schools, and they don't understand it, or
few of them do.
The US has had that "seperate but equal" doctrine for a long time. It's
worth a bitter chuckle that I told this chap, not two days ago, that the US
either has Apartheid or something precious close to it.
--
Never avert your eyes - Kurosawa
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Old Addictions [message #287245 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 04:08 |
|
Richard Bos wrote:
> peachy ashie passion <exquisitepeach [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Louise Mac Mahon wrote:
>>
>>>which ones? I've heard more than once that nicotine is harder to kick than
>>>heroin. Though both times from heroin abuse recoverers who perhaps
>>>transferred a lot of their longing onto the fags and then found that
>>>impossible to let go of too.
>>
>> When I was researching for a presentation last fall I did come across
>>a chart showing addiction stuff, like difficulty of quitting various
>>substances, and tobacco scored highest.
>
>
> Yes, but a large part of this could be that nicotine addiction is an
> acceptable foible in society, and heroin addiction makes you an
> automatic outcaste.
>
> Richard
I think it was more medically based.
I am wondering now how much it may easily have been related to the
length of time between anticipated does. Most smokers require another
hit far more frequently than most heroin users.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #287248 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 04:26 |
|
Alec Cawley wrote:
> In article <Ymmjg.2104$YI3.1499 [at] amstwist00>, perry_awm [at] hotmail.com
> says...
>
>
>>>It's the case, but the current government and a bunch of senators are
>>>working hard to overturn that, and make English the official language.
>>>It's part of the "US vs. Them" Bush doctrine, as I see it.
>>
>>I don't see why not, though. I mean, English is the de facto national
>>language, so why not codify it? I mean, it should be possible to
>>designate relevant languages - Spanish, the various Indian languages -
>>as official languages as well, rather like Sweden has done with Finnish
>>and Sami. Shouldn't it?
>
>
> In theory, in a reasonable world, what you say might be true. In the
> real world, they are preparing a "totally logical" club with which to
> hammer people who, by pure chance, happen to be different from
> themselves and whom they percieve as interlopers. It is the same sort of
> dirty trick as suggesting that the "separate development" of Apartheid
> was equal development in differeent places.
This should be understood in the light of:
"They" and "them" here refer to a small number of power-maddened bozos
in government.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #287316 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 09:47 |
|
Alec Cawley wrote:
> In article <Ymmjg.2104$YI3.1499 [at] amstwist00>, perry_awm [at] hotmail.com
>
>>>It's the case, but the current government and a bunch of senators are
>>>working hard to overturn that, and make English the official language.
>>>It's part of the "US vs. Them" Bush doctrine, as I see it.
>>
>>I don't see why not, though. I mean, English is the de facto national
>>language, so why not codify it? I mean, it should be possible to
>>designate relevant languages - Spanish, the various Indian languages -
>>as official languages as well, rather like Sweden has done with Finnish
>>and Sami. Shouldn't it?
>
> In theory, in a reasonable world, what you say might be true. In the
> real world, they are preparing a "totally logical" club with which to
> hammer people who, by pure chance, happen to be different from
> themselves and whom they percieve as interlopers. It is the same sort of
> dirty trick as suggesting that the "separate development" of Apartheid
> was equal development in differeent places.
Myeah, fair point.
O'course, they could try investing half their world policing efforts
into sorting out their own backyard, arrange proper education for
everyon, and avoid the problem entirely.
OK, rant done.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" (was: Old Addictions) [message #287345 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 11:30 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>>
>> Can you (or another American) clarify something for me? I thought
>> USA had no official language, and English was used for traditional
>> reasons. I recall reading something to the effect that in some areas
>> Spenish is used as the "official" language.
>>
>> Is that not the case?
>
> It's the case, but the current government and a bunch of senators are
> working hard to overturn that, and make English the official
> language. It's part of the "US vs. Them" Bush doctrine, as I see it.
Well, yes. I wonder if they've been close to Steve Jobs, because they
certainly seem to have been caught in a reality distortion field.
I can see their point. Language /is/ an important part of a person's
identity, and it seems to me that they would like to have a rather
homogenous culture and identity. It would certainly make things easier.
Where it falls down, of course, is the simple facts that there are
people who have another language as an important part of their identity.
It's too late in the game to change it now.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #287361 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 12:48 |
|
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:01:04 +0200, Torak
<perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> jotted down:
>Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you (or another American) clarify something for me? I thought USA
>>> had no official language, and English was used for traditional
>>> reasons. I recall reading something to the effect that in some areas
>>> Spenish is used as the "official" language.
>>>
>>> Is that not the case?
>>
>> It's the case, but the current government and a bunch of senators are
>> working hard to overturn that, and make English the official language.
>> It's part of the "US vs. Them" Bush doctrine, as I see it.
>
>I don't see why not, though. I mean, English is the de facto national
>language, so why not codify it? I mean, it should be possible to
>designate relevant languages - Spanish, the various Indian languages -
>as official languages as well, rather like Sweden has done with Finnish
>and Sami. Shouldn't it?
Yeah...but not Swedish, which has no status here.
--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #287393 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 14:49 |
|
Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you (or another American) clarify something for me? I thought
>>> USA had no official language, and English was used for traditional
>>> reasons. I recall reading something to the effect that in some areas
>>> Spenish is used as the "official" language.
>>>
>>> Is that not the case?
>>
>> It's the case, but the current government and a bunch of senators are
>> working hard to overturn that, and make English the official
>> language. It's part of the "US vs. Them" Bush doctrine, as I see it.
>
> I don't see why not, though. I mean, English is the de facto national
> language, so why not codify it? I mean, it should be possible to
> designate relevant languages - Spanish, the various Indian languages -
> as official languages as well, rather like Sweden has done with
> Finnish and Sami. Shouldn't it?
Not going to happen here. The day that white kids get taught Arapaho in
school just won't happen.
For the country as a whole, English is the dominant language, but zoom in to
any degree, and it isn't. There are large cities where English isn't even a
second language, but a distant third. There are whole states where English
isn't dominant.
Then there's the question about what American English really is. A black
person in Queens doesn't speak the same language as a white person a few
miles away in Greenwhich, nor does it match the Spanglish of the southwest.
This isn't just a difference of pronunciation, but entire vocabularies. Why
should Princeton English be imposed on the majority that doesn't speak it?
Because so many /politicians/ speak Princeton English? Give me a better
reason, please.
As for the US standardising, there's a natural resistance, for better and
for worse. The US adopted the metric system as an alternative in the
1860's, and made it the official in the 1960's. Still, most places, even
the government uses miles and Fahrenheit. Only a few states have started
putting up signs with km/h, and that's 40 years after they should have done
so...
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #287417 ] |
Di, 13 Juni 2006 17:09 |
|
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:26:52 -0500, Rocky Frisco
<rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>Alec Cawley wrote:
>
>> In article <Ymmjg.2104$YI3.1499 [at] amstwist00>, perry_awm [at] hotmail.com
>> says...
>>
>>
>>>>It's the case, but the current government and a bunch of senators are
>>>>working hard to overturn that, and make English the official language.
>>>>It's part of the "US vs. Them" Bush doctrine, as I see it.
>>>
>>>I don't see why not, though. I mean, English is the de facto national
>>>language, so why not codify it? I mean, it should be possible to
>>>designate relevant languages - Spanish, the various Indian languages -
>>>as official languages as well, rather like Sweden has done with Finnish
>>>and Sami. Shouldn't it?
>>
>>
>> In theory, in a reasonable world, what you say might be true. In the
>> real world, they are preparing a "totally logical" club with which to
>> hammer people who, by pure chance, happen to be different from
>> themselves and whom they percieve as interlopers. It is the same sort of
>> dirty trick as suggesting that the "separate development" of Apartheid
>> was equal development in differeent places.
>
>This should be understood in the light of:
>
>"They" and "them" here refer to a small number of power-maddened bozos
>in government.
>
Living outside DC I've come to suspect that elections are often
schemes to get rid of the most undesirable residents of the distant
states and send them here to get rid of them. Of course the same is
true of some ambassadors.
It is a scheme to get rid of all the worst drivers.
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #288187 ] |
Fr, 16 Juni 2006 19:46 |
|
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:49:47 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Torak <perry_awm [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>> Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>>>>
> English? Give me a better reason, please.
[---8<---]
>
> As for the US standardising, there's a natural resistance, for better
> and for worse. The US adopted the metric system as an alternative in
> the 1860's, and made it the official in the 1960's. Still, most places,
> even the government uses miles and Fahrenheit. Only a few states have
> started putting up signs with km/h, and that's 40 years after they
> should have done so...
>
> Regards,
No offense, but hasn't anyone pointed out that metric is easier? It's all
powers of 10, rather than multiplies of 12, 20 and whatever Fahrenheit
requires.....
C:\>
--
sig enjoying a relaxing 19 C afternoon
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #288192 ] |
Fr, 16 Juni 2006 06:03 |
|
Elder1 <root [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> No offense, but hasn't anyone pointed out that metric is easier? It's
> all powers of 10, rather than multiplies of 12, 20 and whatever
> Fahrenheit requires.....
And what exactly is easier with multiples of 10, as opposed to any other
number?
Think about it.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #288216 ] |
Fr, 16 Juni 2006 08:38 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Elder1 <root [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> > No offense, but hasn't anyone pointed out that metric is
> > easier? It's all powers of 10, rather than multiplies of 12,
> > 20 and whatever Fahrenheit requires.....
>
> And what exactly is easier with multiples of 10, as opposed
> to any other number?
> Think about it.
I think it's easier having all steps between units be multiples
of always the same number than numbers apparently picked
at random.
100,000 cm = 1000 m = 1 km
seems easier to remember than
63,360 in = 528 ft = 1 mile
Anke
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #288240 ] |
Fr, 16 Juni 2006 10:09 |
|
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:03:20 -0400, "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com>
wrote:
>Elder1 <root [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> No offense, but hasn't anyone pointed out that metric is easier? It's
>> all powers of 10, rather than multiplies of 12, 20 and whatever
>> Fahrenheit requires.....
>
>And what exactly is easier with multiples of 10, as opposed to any other
>number?
>Think about it.
Firstly, kids who learn to count on their fingers have a good mental
picture of what 'ten' is - one item for each digit.
Secondly, possibly because of the previous item, the standard human
counting and writing base for numbers is base ten. Thus 10 times 10 is
100, times 10 is 1000, times 10 is 10,000, times ten is 100,000 and so on.
Likewise, dividing by ten gives 0.1, 0.01, 0.001 and so forth.
As a result, I can tell you exactly what any number of tens multiplied or
added together comes out to, in a split-second. Ten to the power thirteen?
A one with thirteen zeroes. Easy. Nine hundred and twenty-seven tens added
together? Tack a zero on the end of 927, nothing simpler.
Better still, I can tell you with equal speed what a number *divided* by
ten, ten squared or ten cubed is.
Try doing that mentally with twelves, fourteens or even twenties, and
compare the speed of results.
Although there is nothing necessarily advantageous about ten _inherently_,
and certainly the universe does not revolve around one particular integer
over another, the human written numeric system in place today makes
base-ten arithmetic extremely fast, simple and robust.
Thus, metric.
-SteveD
|
|
|
| Re: [I] "English Only" [message #288250 ] |
Fr, 16 Juni 2006 10:34 |
|
In article <e6tai6$8sv$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com>, Arthur Hagen says...
> Elder1 <root [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> > No offense, but hasn't anyone pointed out that metric is easier? It's
> > all powers of 10, rather than multiplies of 12, 20 and whatever
> > Fahrenheit requires.....
>
> And what exactly is easier with multiples of 10, as opposed to any other
> number?
> Think about it.
Multiples of 10 means you just have to shift the comma to convert.
--
PleegWat
Remove caps to reply
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 10:17:41 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,12106 Sekunden |
