rec.autos.simulators

>Thanks Paul, this is what I mean. I shouldn't really have said anything. It's
>a
>stupid job, and really not worth getting irate about. It just gets to me, the
>fact that my father gives $50,000 to our govt. in taxes only for it to be
>wasted on these people. Over half the aplicants are for "drug ***ion" or
>"depression". Cheer up, and get over it is what I say. I have very little
>sympathy for drug abusers and scroungers... all they need to do is get their
>arses in gear, like me and my working towards FFord racing. All it takes is a
>little ambition. Am I not correct, sir?

> BK

> According to my OED, since the 17C at least, "gay" has had connotations of
> excess, of being descriptive of those "addicated to pleasure"  (that is to
> say, for the last well-nigh four-hundred years anyway, it hasn't "simply"
> meant 'happy' at all--it's been a code for "effeminacy").  By the very
early
> part of this now-ending century, that usage had slipped to include
> euphemistic references to ***ity (and I imagine that slippage was
> generated at *least* as much by straights as it was by gays).  It's not a
> new development.

> But since the late-fifties, and more strongly in the sixties and then
after
> Stonewall, Gays seem to have appropriated this once-derogatory term as a
> marker of identity and pride.  That process too, is nothing new.

> In fact, since you're so interested in (and I quote) "the English
language,
> its construction and usage, and the changes that occur," I'm sure can find
> other instances of this type of appropriation (hint: sans-colouttes,
> Jacobins, Yankees, etc.)

> But--surprise--this one somehow stuck out.

> Your anxiety is showing.  After all, the rhetorical strategy behind the
> formulation "If ***ity is nothing to be ashamed about, how come .
> .blah blah blah" is a not-so-subtle way of saying it is indeed shameful,
eh?
> You offer the concluding clause as lurking, potential "proof" of your
> supposition.  And again, the "perfectly good" word (gay=simply happy) is
> "now" something different (***ity).  A tale of corruption!  Bruce
> gives us the Edenic Fall of an innocent word!

> But wait, let's suppose "they" are hiding (maybe some do).  Let's suppose
> "they" (all these like-minded automatons) do want to avoid the explicit
> reference to ***ity and "the dirty stuff."  Why on earth would
"they"
> do that except out of that barely-hidden Shame which BK so masterfully
> uncovers?

> Welllll . . . how about insecurity of employment?  How about social
> exclusion?  How about mortal fear?

> DK

> > "Outing"
> > Yet another example of a perfectly good word, used for generations in
the
> > context (example)  "We went on an outing to the beach", now being
> associated
> > with
> > ***ity.
> > Just like the word "gay", once an innocuous English word that simply
meant
> > "happy".

> > If ***ity is nothing to be ashamed about, why do those who have
> this
> > bent hide behind the word "gay?

> > Just curious.........nothing more.

> Whatever.
> I still find it rather sad that a perfectly neat little descriptive word,
> that has been around for generations, has had it's meaning totally changed
> because ***s abhor the contraction "homo".
> Bi-***s don't seem to be offended by the term "bi" when it comes to
> labels and as far as I am aware the term "hetero" hasn't caused an outcry
> amongst we hetero***s (a "straight" is something else entirely, as far
as
> I am concerned)

> My argument is less about *** preferences and tolerance and more about
> the demolition of English, I suppose.


> > Well, most of the ***s I know who have "come out" (meaning that,
in
> > many cases, they no longer will hide their *** preference) do not
> > consider themselves as "hiding" behind the term "gay."  In this country
> (the
> > U.S.A.) the word "gay" is almost completely associated (as you note,
more
> > generally) with ***ity.  Gays know it, ***s know it, and
> > straights (both the tolerant ones and those who aren't) know it.  So as
> for
> > hiding .  .er . . .well, if a term is so profoundly linked with a
certain
> > cultural identity (or set of identities), how can you suggest there is
> > hiding going on?  Who's left to hide from?  Grandma and grandpa?

> > If I'm Caucasian, but I call myself "white," would you say I'm hiding
> behind
> > that term?

> > Do you really think that those who call themselves gay (instead of
calling
> > themselves ***--and let's admit it: this isn't an either-or
> > situation--most do both, after all . . .), do you really think they're
> > hoping that most people won't notice?

> > I think you're making a bit of an assumption with the word "hide" . . .

> > Wow, this really is off-topic!  But there it is   . . .

> > In good faith,
> > David

> > PS  If you argue with me, I'll call the police!  Most effective, I hear.

> > > "Outing"
> > > Yet another example of a perfectly good word, used for generations in
> the
> > > context (example)  "We went on an outing to the beach", now being
> > associated
> > > with
> > > ***ity.
> > > Just like the word "gay", once an innocuous English word that simply
> meant
> > > "happy".

> > > If ***ity is nothing to be ashamed about, why do those who have
> > this
> > > bent hide behind the word "gay?

> > > Just curious.........nothing more.

> On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:33:54 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell"

> >He died not because of stupidity but because he was driving at the limit of
> >the car, not himself,

> Surely driving over the limit of a car on public roads IS stupidity,
> quite an exceptional statement really...

> Anthony Bulloch

> Why are you talking about ***s now? :-))

> Tore

> > HAAAA!
> > Lovely comeback!!
> > Thanks, Meiji.
> > But please........don't try and convince me that, when the word "gay" is
> > used, the majority of listeners or readers don't associate it with some
> > reference to ***ity.

> You should have been born French Bruce. I understand they don't put up
with
> the corruption of their pure language :-))

> Tore

> > Whatever.
> > I still find it rather sad that a perfectly neat little descriptive word

> Like " the poop deck" eh?

> I remember when the "Flinstones" cartoon used the words...."and we'll have
a
> gay old time"....I wasn't aware at the time, that this meant their ***
> preferences. Who knew that this was the "gay" entertainment community's
> insidious wedge to push the acceptance of their lifestyle onto what was to
> become the very foundation of the SIM Racing world. <g>  How English words
> change, but it's not new. You can find a bunch of them if you read an
older
> "King James Bible" The meaning of some words are completely opposite to
what
> they originally meant, thus obscuring a correct understanding of the
> text....even if you take the context into consideration. I can supply a
few
> examples if you like.

> Tore

> > .  And Hawthorne's
> > > driving is no less brilliant just because the English language has
moved
> > > on since his epitath was written.

> > I quite agree about the driving <yeah>. It is just a shame <you know wot
I
> > mean> that future generations will make assumptions when they read the
> > <cool>stone
> > though <ok>. As it stands, youngsters are seen to have quite a giggle at
> it
> > as they pass by <right>. My grammar and command of language <Yeah> is
far
> > from perfect but I'm afraid that I'm with Bruce when it comes to
opinions
> in
> > this area. I'm not going to get into symantics over one word however.
Nah
> > wot I mean yeah.<wicked>

> > Mark ;-)

> I used to become totally frustrated at trying to read "olde" English,
where
> the letter 's' was exactly the same as the letter 'f'.

> Captain Cook's chronicles were tedious......stuff like "fail the feven
feas"
> becomes a bit wearing after a while!!! :o)

> > Like " the poop deck" eh?

> > I remember when the "Flinstones" cartoon used the words...."and we'll
have
> a
> > gay old time"....I wasn't aware at the time, that this meant their
***
> > preferences. Who knew that this was the "gay" entertainment community's
> > insidious wedge to push the acceptance of their lifestyle onto what was
to
> > become the very foundation of the SIM Racing world. <g>  How English
words
> > change, but it's not new. You can find a bunch of them if you read an
> older
> > "King James Bible" The meaning of some words are completely opposite to
> what
> > they originally meant, thus obscuring a correct understanding of the
> > text....even if you take the context into consideration. I can supply a
> few
> > examples if you like.

> > Tore

> > > .  And Hawthorne's
> > > > driving is no less brilliant just because the English language has
> moved
> > > > on since his epitath was written.

> > > I quite agree about the driving <yeah>. It is just a shame <you know
wot
> I
> > > mean> that future generations will make assumptions when they read the
> > > <cool>stone
> > > though <ok>. As it stands, youngsters are seen to have quite a giggle
at
> > it
> > > as they pass by <right>. My grammar and command of language <Yeah> is
> far
> > > from perfect but I'm afraid that I'm with Bruce when it comes to
> opinions
> > in
> > > this area. I'm not going to get into symantics over one word however.
> Nah
> > > wot I mean yeah.<wicked>

> > > Mark ;-)

> Certainly not by those chaps over the other side of the French Channel, so
I
> believe! :o)

> > You should have been born French Bruce. I understand they don't put up
> with
> > the corruption of their pure language :-))

> > Tore

> > > Whatever.
> > > I still find it rather sad that a perfectly neat little descriptive
word

> Hawthorne was not racing Rob Walker that day.  Hawthorne was just driving
> very fast in the rain.  Rob infact was trying to keep pace and even said
> this pace might be allright for a world champion, but not for me and he
> then started to hang back.  At that time Rob saw Hawthornes car go sliding
> off the road killing him.

> Rob mentioned this in a Road and Track article on about some of the cars
> Rob owned.

> Dave

> > > .  And Hawthorne's
> > > > driving is no less brilliant just because the English language has
> moved
> > > > on since his epitath was written.

> > Am I the only person who thinks Mike Hawthorne was a complete ***
> > for killing himself in the way he did?  (While racing a friend on the A3
> > near Guildford he lost control and crashed head-on into a lorry).

> > Racing on a track is one thing, but since he could quite easily have
> > killed the occupants of an oncoming car this was not something that
> > should be admired IMHO.