F**king Ramblers.

Paul Saunders said:

Quoted message said:

Hmmmm. That *might* work if you know your audience, with usenet you
don't. I don't see how it works with people on the edge of it being
true. You could call a fit but poorly performing rugby team
"geriatric", for instance,

So it's okay to call fit hillwalkers geriatric, then?

It can be, yes, in the right context.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but NOT old people.

But that seems to miss the point. It's rather like saying it's okay to call
white people "[censored]".

theres a whole complex thing there with white n******, it means
something else, for a start. The word is in a class of its own.

Quoted message said:

So is it okay for an old person to call another old person a geriatric then,
in particular when they obviously aren't?

often.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ageism is about not treating people equally on their merits, ageist
language reinforces it.

I thought we were talking about kids poking fun at oldies. What you're
calling ageism is a different matter.

Kids? I thought adults.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

The Reid said:

I think communication has to find commonly understood ground or it
fails.

So there has to be a period of experimentation to find out where that
commonly understood ground is then, yes?

I think the problem [1] with the internet is that it throws people from all
different backgrounds and social circles together into one huge melting pot,
so that people who are unlikely to come into contact in a real-life social
situation, find themselves encountering one another as a matter of course.
But most people on the internet have no idea who they're actually
talking/writing to, and I presume it's common to assume that most other
people are, or should be, like those that they're know in real life. So it
comes as a big shock when others don't conform to what they consider to be
"social norms".

Those "social norms" are only normal within their own social circles, so
it's no surprise that so many have trouble understanding one another's
intentions, which all too often results in flame wars and the like.

[1] I call it a problem, but I actually think it's a good thing, an
opportunity for people to expand their experience of others, to become more
tolerant and understanding, as opposed to remaining narrow minded and
intolerant, expecting others to conform to the peculiar notions that they
happen to have grown up with. I think anyone who goes on the internet needs
to be fundamentally open-minded, otherwise they're just asking for trouble.

Quoted message said:

Yes, I suggested he cancel the post! Not a bad idea in the days of
instant BB.

BB?

I recently read some internet laws related to blogging, which said that
comments on your blog are the copyright of those who wrote them, and that
you would actually be breaking the law if you edited or deleted their posts,
without first listing terms and conditions on your blog that would allow you
to do that. So bear that in mind if you start a blog, make it clear that you
"reserve the right to trash posts by tossers!" ;-) Or something a bit more
PC.

But on the other side of the coin, starting lots of good arguments on your
blog can be a good way of making it popular.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's no need to say that a "white gunman went crazy and
shot a bunch of people". If no colour is mentioned, white will be
assumed.

I see the logic but think its better to either always specify or never
specify to avoid the pitfall of stereotyping

Well tell the BBC that then, and all the other news organisations!

Thing is, if a white gunman went crazy in darkest Africa, I'd expect it to
be reported that he was white, since that's not the norm in Africa.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Colourful phraseology does make a post more interesting and
enjoyable to read by the way.

Compare the following:

"I raced to the car park, turned in sharpy, slammed on the anchors
and screeched to a halt, showing the arrogant attendant with gravel.
I begrudgingly paid the little [censored] before fighting my way through
hordes of grockles to get on the open hill. All of a sudden it
started pissing down and I faced a miserable slog to the summit."

hmmm, stereotyping all Hitlers as dictatorial and associating small
people with dictators, I think the hidden message here is that all
local govt staff are anti semetic :-)

Damn! How did you spot that? ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"I drove to the car park and parked my car. I paid the attendant
then walked past the other visitors to reach the open ground beyond.
Unfortunately it began to rain, so I put on my waterproofs. It
looked as though I was likely to get a little wet on my stroll up
the hill."

Basically the same facts, but conveying a completely different
impression. While the second is more politically correct and less
likely to offend anyone, it's far more likely to bore the reader
into a state of mindless tedium, and more likely to make them move
on to the next post before reaching the end.

pardon? :-)

Exactly.

What say we bring the interrogation to an end and allow poor toad to be
released and put on probation for a while?

The Negotiator
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk

The Reid said:

Bill Grey said:

With luck your time will come. When you've been offended by sheer
ignorant ageism your opinion may differ.

Unlikely, unless I change my entire mindset. I'm just not inclined to take
offence at most things, even if someone wants to offend me. In fact,
especially if they do.

Of course, it depends what kind of ageism you're talking about. If I were
refused a job on the basis of my age then I may well be offended, but
reading a word that I didn't like would never offend me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't dare tell me to
lighten up - who are you to tell me what to do.

Well treat it as a suggestion then Bill. I think this argument has got a
little heated and we just need to cool down a bit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I did in fact let the thread progress a very long way before
responding, but toad's obviously trolling attitude has caused
considerable offence. You seem to be trolling yourself or playing
devils advocate.

No, I'm standing up for someone who I feel has been misunderstood and
unfairly criticised for an inappropriate choice of words.

Quoted message said:

Bill, I'm not 18 anymore but I honestly don't think offence was
intended.

I'm glad you see it that way Mike.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk

In message <[email hidden]>, Bill Grey
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

No it wasn't, it was a harmless tongue in cheek description that some people
chose to take offense at. How can it be offensive to call an obviously fit
able-bodied elderly walker a geriatric? That's like calling Roger a slow
walker, or calling Arnold Schwarzenegger skinny! Lighten up Bill.

With luck your time will come. When you've been offended by sheer
ignorant ageism your opinion may differ .Don't dare tell me to lighten
up - who are you to tell me what to do.

That's telling him, but why? Is he not entitled to his own opinion?

Quoted message said:

I did in fact let the thread progress a very long way before
responding, but toad's obviously trolling attitude has caused
considerable offence. You seem to be trolling yourself or playing
devils advocate.

Now that you've expressed your view unambiguously, I might venture to
suggest that in my contrary view, you are bang out of order. You have
over-reacted and responded inappropriately to an innocent posting which
happened to contain the word geriatric.

It's a great shame on all contributors thus far that, despite waving
around "the Oxford", nobody has provided the intended meaning of the
word. It's first recorded use was by Dr.Ignatz Nascher in the New York
Medical Journal in 1909 and was derived from the Greek words "geros"
(old age) and "iatrikos" (of medicine). It's meaning, despite all of
the posturing, is the medical specialism of old age. In the absence of
further qualification the term carries no implications of infirmity,
merely of old age.

Quoted message said:

It does not become you Paul.

There's no need to patronise Paul. You are attempting to use your
greater age and familiarity as weapons with which to intimidate him into
silence. I think that it is inappropriate.

--
Dave N

N.B. Mail to nospam is rejected. Reply-To does work.

Paul Saunders said:

Quoted message said:

I think communication has to find commonly understood ground or it
fails.

So there has to be a period of experimentation to find out where that
commonly understood ground is then, yes?

ongoing, I would think.

Quoted message said:

I think the problem [1] with the internet is that it throws people from all
different backgrounds and social circles together into one huge melting pot,
so that people who are unlikely to come into contact in a real-life social
situation, find themselves encountering one another as a matter of course.
But most people on the internet have no idea who they're actually
talking/writing to, and I presume it's common to assume that most other
people are, or should be, like those that they're know in real life. So it
comes as a big shock when others don't conform to what they consider to be
"social norms".

one of its best points, I think.

Quoted message said:

Those "social norms" are only normal within their own social circles, so
it's no surprise that so many have trouble understanding one another's
intentions, which all too often results in flame wars and the like.

yep

Quoted message said:

BB?

BroadBand

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see the logic but think its better to either always specify or never
specify to avoid the pitfall of stereotyping

Well tell the BBC that then, and all the other news organisations!

indeed.

Quoted message said:

What say we bring the interrogation to an end and allow poor toad to be
released and put on probation for a while?

no whipping? Spoilsport.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Bill Grey said:

I did in fact let the thread progress a very long way before responding,

You waited 'till all the dispute had died down and it was largely a
dead topic, then you waded in to re-awaken it. Curiously completely
ignoring the post re-write which had already addressed your (rather
affected) grievances!

On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:06:59 +0100, Dave N <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's a great shame on all contributors thus far that, despite waving
around "the Oxford", nobody has provided the intended meaning of the
word. It's first recorded use was by Dr.Ignatz Nascher in the New York
Medical Journal in 1909 and was derived from the Greek words "geros"
(old age) and "iatrikos" (of medicine). It's meaning, despite all of
the posturing, is the medical specialism of old age. In the absence of
further qualification the term carries no implications of infirmity,
merely of old age.

Really?

geriatric
adjective [ATTRIB.] of or relating to old people, especially with
regard to their health care: a geriatric hospital.

noun an old person, especially one receiving special care: a rest home
for geriatrics.

ORIGIN 1920s: from Greek geras ‘old age’ + iatros ‘doctor’, on the
pattern of paediatric.

USAGE: Geriatric is the normal, semi-official term used in Britain and
the US when referring to the health care of old people (a geriatric
ward; geriatric patients). When used outside such contexts, it
typically carries overtones of being worn out and decrepit and can
therefore be offensive if used with reference to people.

Thats what Oxford has to say, as I posted before, dont see much
difference from what you say except for the usage outside of medical
circles, where it *does* carry implications.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

On 10 May 2007 07:12:37 -0700, toad <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You waited 'till all the dispute had died down and it was largely a
dead topic, then you waded in to re-awaken it. Curiously completely
ignoring the post re-write which had already addressed your (rather
affected) grievances!

now somebody else wait two or three days and wade in anew :-)
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

The Reid said:

Geoff Berrow said:

Quoted message said:

In the same way that non-smokers are intolerant.

Does not compute.

Had an argument with a smoker in a pub. He reckoned the new ban was an
erosion of freedom.

It is, is it a good one is a better question?

Smokers should be free to smoke anywhere; human beings should have the
right to clean air; buildings and forests should have the right not to be
set on fire; workers should have the right not to be put out of work by
fires.
--
Peter.
If you can do it today, you didn't put off enough yesterday.

Paul Saunders said:

Geoff Berrow said:

Recently I gave up drinking and driving altogether having previously
limited myself to a pint and a half of beer. I was amazed how much
more alert I was at the end of the night, even though after drinking
I could have driven home perfectly legally.

I totally agree. I don't like to drive after any amount of alcohol, not even
1/2 pint.

Same here. In the mid-60s, when I first bought a motorbike, my Father (who
was liberal for the time and had been a liscensee twice) said he'd kill me
- if I didn't do it myself - if I had alcohol before riding/driving. As he
meant it, I didn't!
--
Peter.
If you can do it today, you didn't put off enough yesterday.

In message <[email hidden]>, The Reid
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:06:59 +0100, Dave N <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's a great shame on all contributors thus far that, despite waving
around "the Oxford", nobody has provided the intended meaning of the
word. It's first recorded use was by Dr.Ignatz Nascher in the New York
Medical Journal in 1909 and was derived from the Greek words "geros"
(old age) and "iatrikos" (of medicine). It's meaning, despite all of
the posturing, is the medical specialism of old age. In the absence of
further qualification the term carries no implications of infirmity,
merely of old age.

Really?

Yes, really.

Quoted message said:

geriatric
adjective [ATTRIB.] of or relating to old people, especially with
regard to their health care: a geriatric hospital.

noun an old person, especially one receiving special care: a rest home
for geriatrics.

ORIGIN 1920s: from Greek geras ‘old age’ + iatros ‘doctor’, on the
pattern of paediatric.

I think you'll find that it was devised from the word "iatrikos" and not
"iatros". The latter is the noun for doctor, whilst the former is the
derivation "of a doctor" which is arguably better translated as "of
medicine". The exact translation of "iatrikos" may be debated but I
think that there is no doubt that it has a different meaning to the noun
"iatros" which refers specifically to a person; a "doctor".

In fact, this made up word would have been better to have adopted the
prefix of "geront" derived from "geras", rather than the faux "geria",
which would have led to the word gerontiatric. We are stuck, however,
with what Dr Nascher chose to write in 1909. In modern Greek, a
geriatrician is often known as a "gerontologos".

Quoted message said:

USAGE: Geriatric is the normal, semi-official term used in Britain and
the US when referring to the health care of old people (a geriatric
ward; geriatric patients). When used outside such contexts, it
typically carries overtones of being worn out and decrepit and can
therefore be offensive if used with reference to people.

Ah, now you quote the intended meaning instead of only picking up on the
Oxford's opinion of its meaning when used as an adjective out of
context.

Quoted message said:

Thats what Oxford has to say, as I posted before, dont see much
difference from what you say except for the usage outside of medical
circles, where it *does* carry implications.

Please note, again, that I wrote "nobody has provided the *intended*
meaning of the word" (my new emphasis). If the Oxford Dictionary wishes
to delve into the uncertain world of slang, which can change daily or in
relation to very small changes of locale, it can only expect to be
challenged. My own view of the word is its intended meaning. If your
understanding is different, so be it, but that is merely street slang.
That being the case, I don't think that you can assume your
interpretation over Toad's intended meaning since it appears that both
of you were using the word out of context, i.e. your contexts were
different.

Wouldn't it have been far simpler just to have asked Toad what he did
mean?

--
Dave N

N.B. Mail to nospam is rejected. Reply-To does work.

On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:28:22 +0100, Dave N <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I think you'll find that it was devised from the word "iatrikos" and not
"iatros".

does it matter in this context?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

USAGE: Geriatric is the normal, semi-official term used in Britain and
the US when referring to the health care of old people (a geriatric
ward; geriatric patients). When used outside such contexts, it
typically carries overtones of being worn out and decrepit and can
therefore be offensive if used with reference to people.

Ah, now you quote the intended meaning instead of only picking

nope, I had also quoted the "technical" meaning.

Quoted message said:

up on the
Oxford's opinion of its meaning when used as an adjective out of
context.

I think the Oxfords opinion on what people mean by it is significant,
its not "out of context" its exactly in context as used.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thats what Oxford has to say, as I posted before, dont see much
difference from what you say except for the usage outside of medical
circles, where it *does* carry implications.

Please note, again, that I wrote "nobody has provided the *intended*
meaning of the word" (my new emphasis).

Yes I had quoted both meanings and I dont believe for one minute it
was meant as the medical usage

Quoted message said:

If the Oxford Dictionary wishes
to delve into the uncertain world of slang,

Its not "slang" anyway, just common usage "slang" is just an attempt
to rubbish the definition. Such definitions are what dictionaries are
for.

Quoted message said:

Wouldn't it have been far simpler just to have asked Toad what he did
mean?

people did, I dont see why the dictionary definition is not relevant,
it tells us what an authority thinks we mean when we use it.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

In message <[email hidden]>, The Reid
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:28:22 +0100, Dave N <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

USAGE: Geriatric is the normal, semi-official term used in Britain and
the US when referring to the health care of old people (a geriatric
ward; geriatric patients). When used outside such contexts, it
typically carries overtones of being worn out and decrepit and can
therefore be offensive if used with reference to people.

Ah, now you quote the intended meaning instead of only picking

nope, I had also quoted the "technical" meaning.

In which case, please accept my apologies because I had missed that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up on the
Oxford's opinion of its meaning when used as an adjective out of
context.

I think the Oxfords opinion on what people mean by it is significant,
its not "out of context" its exactly in context as used.

Sorry, I disagree. If a word is used outside of its intended meaning
especially when it is a made-up word for a very specific concept, like
geriatric, then it is out of context. In fact your own posting quoted
the Oxford as stating, "When used outside such contexts, it typically
carries overtones of being worn out and decrepit and can therefore be
offensive if used with reference to people."

Please note the description of "out of such contexts", "typically" and
"can therefore be". It is the Oxford's *opinion*, not the definition
and the dictionary highlights that fact.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thats what Oxford has to say, as I posted before, dont see much
difference from what you say except for the usage outside of medical
circles, where it *does* carry implications.

Please note, again, that I wrote "nobody has provided the *intended*
meaning of the word" (my new emphasis).

Yes I had quoted both meanings and I dont believe for one minute it
was meant as the medical usage

Quoted message said:

If the Oxford Dictionary wishes
to delve into the uncertain world of slang,

Its not "slang" anyway, just common usage "slang" is just an attempt
to rubbish the definition. Such definitions are what dictionaries are
for.

Not at all. I used the descriptor of "slang" in its sense of informal,
ephemeral and idiomatic language. I refer you again to your own quote
from the Oxford Dictionary about contexts and the indeterminate meaning
as expressed by their use of the word "typically". The whole point of
dictionaries quoting slang is to highlight the fact that the meaning can
be variable, as distinct from the formal definition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wouldn't it have been far simpler just to have asked Toad what he did
mean?

people did, I dont see why the dictionary definition is not relevant,
it tells us what an authority thinks we mean when we use it.

I am trying to point out the irony of using "the dictionary definition"
immutably when in fact you are actually quoting the Oxford's opinion of
the meaning as "typically". That means it cannot always be relied upon.
I am trying to illustrate the futility of being inflexible.

By all means interpret the word in the context used as you believe to be
correct, but please don't quote the Oxford Dictionary as an unchallenged
authority in support of your point of view when the word has not been
used in its formal sense.

Executive Summary
=================
I challenge your apparent assumption that the word "geriatric" could not
have been used with a different meaning from the one you have ascribed.

--
Dave N

N.B. Mail to nospam is rejected. Reply-To does work.

The Reid said:

It would be ideal if segregation could be allowed where possible, then
everybody could have what they want.

I've seen that solution being compared to having a 'no-peeing' area in a
swimming pool!

Jim Ford

Jim Ford said:

Quoted message said:

It would be ideal if segregation could be allowed where possible, then
everybody could have what they want.

I've seen that solution being compared to having a 'no-peeing' area in a
swimming pool!

well, I would be willing to get a small amount of smoke coming in from
the smokers bar if it let everybody have what they want, seems we are
going for 100% what non smokers want.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:06:12 +0100, Dave N <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nope, I had also quoted the "technical" meaning.

In which case, please accept my apologies because I had missed that.

no problem

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up on the
Oxford's opinion of its meaning when used as an adjective out of
context.

I think the Oxfords opinion on what people mean by it is significant,
its not "out of context" its exactly in context as used.

Sorry, I disagree. If a word is used outside of its intended meaning
especially when it is a made-up word for a very specific concept, like
geriatric, then it is out of context. In fact your own posting quoted
the Oxford as stating, "When used outside such contexts, it typically
carries overtones of being worn out and decrepit and can therefore be
offensive if used with reference to people."

yes, that was my point.

Quoted message said:

Please note the description of "out of such contexts", "typically" and
"can therefore be". It is the Oxford's *opinion*, not the definition
and the dictionary highlights that fact.

what is a definition but a dictionaries opinion?

Quoted message said:

Not at all. I used the descriptor of "slang" in its sense of informal,
ephemeral and idiomatic language. I refer you again to your own quote
from the Oxford Dictionary about contexts and the indeterminate meaning
as expressed by their use of the word "typically". The whole point of
dictionaries quoting slang is to highlight the fact that the meaning can
be variable, as distinct from the formal definition.

OK, thats not a problem

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wouldn't it have been far simpler just to have asked Toad what he did
mean?

people did, I dont see why the dictionary definition is not relevant,
it tells us what an authority thinks we mean when we use it.

I am trying to point out the irony of using "the dictionary definition"
immutably when in fact you are actually quoting the Oxford's opinion of
the meaning as "typically". That means it cannot always be relied upon.
I am trying to illustrate the futility of being inflexible.

who said it was immutable, its a guide to how the word is used. Why
you dont see that as relevant to this I dont know.

Quoted message said:

By all means interpret the word in the context used as you believe to be
correct, but please don't quote the Oxford Dictionary as an unchallenged
authority

I didnt say it was "unchallenged", its a better source than either of
us though.

Quoted message said:

Executive Summary

LOL

Quoted message said:

=================
I challenge your apparent assumption that the word "geriatric" could not
have been used with a different meaning from the one you have ascribed.

Its clear to me that the word was used in its informal form (toad isnt
a doctor AFAIK) , its clear at least one major dictionary thinks that
form is insulting. Its clear members of this group also think so.
thats plenty for me. If you read the thread properly you will see I
tend to believe the OP wasnt aware of that meaning.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

In message <[email hidden]>, The Reid
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:06:12 +0100, Dave N <[email hidden]>
wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

If you read the thread properly you will see I
tend to believe the OP wasnt aware of that meaning.

So what exactly are we debating, again?

--
Dave N

N.B. Mail to nospam is rejected. Reply-To does work.

The Reid said:

Quoted message said:

Please note the description of "out of such contexts", "typically"
and "can therefore be". It is the Oxford's *opinion*, not the
definition and the dictionary highlights that fact.

what is a definition but a dictionaries opinion?

But toad linked to a different dictionary with a different opinion, thus
proving the point that the slang meaning is variable.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk

In message <[email hidden]>, Dave N
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

There's no need to patronise Paul. You are attempting to use your
greater age and familiarity as weapons with which to intimidate him
into silence. I think that it is inappropriate.

I wouldn't dream of patronising him. Having experienced ageism, which he
cannot have had, gives me the edge of experience. Until he has felt the
frustration of ageist remarks or more importantly the "hidden" effects
of implied ageism he hasn't the experience on which to base his argument
or judge feelings about it..
--
Bill Grey

Dave N said:

There's no need to patronise Paul. You are attempting to use your
greater age and familiarity as weapons with which to intimidate him
into silence. I think that it is inappropriate.

I think I've explored this topic pretty thoroughly, I really can't think of
anything else to say about it.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk