Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #420582 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-19 00:48 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-10-20 15:14 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written
Two Book Recommendations "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-08-19 00:48 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-19 03:45 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-08-19 13:12 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations graydonish@gmail.com - 2015-08-19 07:23 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Michael R N Dolbear" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-08-19 16:40 +0100
Re: Two Book Recommendations djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-08-19 15:51 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-08-20 10:42 +0800
Re: Two Book Recommendations djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-08-19 13:10 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-08-19 12:25 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-08-19 16:59 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-19 11:47 -0500
Re: Two Book Recommendations djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-08-19 17:01 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2015-08-19 14:01 -0500
Re: Two Book Recommendations djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-08-19 20:08 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-08-19 13:23 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> - 2015-08-21 10:36 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-08-21 14:57 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-08-21 14:27 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-08-21 20:01 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-21 15:20 -0500
Re: Two Book Recommendations goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) - 2015-08-22 07:17 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> - 2015-08-22 15:50 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-08-22 21:10 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> - 2015-08-22 19:23 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-08-23 00:46 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> - 2015-08-23 10:41 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) - 2015-08-24 02:01 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-08-24 02:18 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 22:24 -0500
Re: Two Book Recommendations Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 22:26 -0500
Re: Two Book Recommendations wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) - 2015-08-24 17:23 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-24 19:01 -0500
Re: Two Book Recommendations William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 12:11 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-24 18:55 -0500
Re: Two Book Recommendations William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 20:18 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) - 2015-08-25 01:49 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 22:29 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:55 -0500
Re: Two Book Recommendations Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> - 2015-08-24 18:00 -0600
Re: Two Book Recommendations wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-20 08:36 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 06:20 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2015-10-20 13:46 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 07:33 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-20 09:58 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-10-20 14:02 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-20 11:34 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2015-10-21 03:34 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Raymond Daley" <raymond.daley@ntlworld.com> - 2015-10-21 11:45 +0100
Re: Two Book Recommendations "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-21 18:19 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-10-22 00:07 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-21 22:41 -0600
Re: Two Book Recommendations lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-22 07:08 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 18:27 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-23 08:16 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-23 08:24 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-10-23 08:36 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-23 14:50 -0600
Re: Two Book Recommendations Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-10-23 17:18 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 16:26 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 16:24 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-22 19:46 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 09:30 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2015-10-22 22:14 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 09:31 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2015-10-23 15:24 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 16:03 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2015-10-23 16:36 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-10-23 19:38 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-23 22:46 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-10-24 03:42 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations "John F. Eldredge" <john@jfeldredge.com> - 2015-10-24 16:27 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 13:36 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-10-24 15:24 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-24 16:21 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-25 17:14 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-10-26 10:51 +0800
Re: Two Book Recommendations Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-10-26 12:01 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-26 12:05 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-26 16:42 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-10-26 19:52 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-10-27 10:45 +0800
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-24 10:51 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-10-24 20:00 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 23:33 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-10-24 23:21 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-25 01:07 -0600
Re: Two Book Recommendations wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-25 17:04 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-24 20:50 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-10-24 23:21 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-25 14:20 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-10-26 10:56 +0800
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-25 21:50 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-26 16:28 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-26 14:22 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-26 17:32 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-10-26 14:52 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-26 15:09 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2015-10-27 18:08 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 06:19 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-28 06:38 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 07:11 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2015-10-28 14:59 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-28 08:17 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-10-28 11:47 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 09:01 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations David Johnston <David@block.net> - 2015-10-28 13:26 -0600
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-26 18:13 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-10-27 10:47 +0800
Re: Two Book Recommendations "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 06:03 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations David Johnston <David@block.net> - 2015-10-21 16:50 -0600
Re: Two Book Recommendations ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2015-10-21 23:11 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-10-21 11:41 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2015-10-21 16:03 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-21 13:08 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2015-10-20 09:40 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-10-21 08:13 +0800
Re: Two Book Recommendations Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-20 18:21 -0600
Re: Two Book Recommendations "John F. Eldredge" <john@jfeldredge.com> - 2015-10-21 00:43 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-20 18:50 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-10-21 10:13 +0800
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2015-10-21 12:34 +1100
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-10-21 10:15 +0800
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2015-10-21 16:35 +1100
Re: Two Book Recommendations Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2015-10-23 15:20 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-10-24 08:59 +0800
Re: Two Book Recommendations wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-23 09:17 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-20 10:24 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-20 18:07 -0600
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-20 21:20 -0400
Re: Two Book Recommendations Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> - 2015-10-20 08:02 -0600
Re: Two Book Recommendations Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2015-10-23 02:32 +0100
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kay Shapero <kay@invalid.net> - 2015-10-20 22:59 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-08-25 11:07 +0800
Re: Two Book Recommendations Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 22:40 -0500
Re: Two Book Recommendations Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-08-25 08:06 -0600
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-08-26 11:44 +0800
Re: Two Book Recommendations Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-08-26 08:54 -0600
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-08-26 09:06 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-08-26 09:24 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-08-27 10:25 +0800
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-08-27 04:35 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> - 2015-08-24 22:17 -0600
Re: Two Book Recommendations Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-08-25 04:34 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-08-25 08:10 -0600
Re: Two Book Recommendations petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-08-25 07:49 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2015-08-25 06:27 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-08-25 12:50 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-26 01:17 -0500
Re: Two Book Recommendations goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) - 2015-08-31 07:31 +0000
Re: Two Book Recommendations William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 11:57 -0700
Re: Two Book Recommendations "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-20 15:14 -0400
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | petertrei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 06:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e370453f-6394-4fe3-8188-25ac8f158389@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425017 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 8:36:27 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote: > In article <m2zj1gjkzf.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>, > Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> said: > > > And maybe a link to Charles Stross' story "A Tall Tail", in which ClF3 > > does not appear but is relevant: > > > > http://www.tor.com/2012/07/20/a-tall-tail/ > > Finally got around to reading that. What caught my attention was a > complete side point: am I ignorant of large swathes of U.S. culture > that are quite unlike the parts I grew up with, or am I correct in > thinking that somebody should tell Charlie Stross that > seventy-year-old white lifetime mainstream Americans don't generally > talk about "scoring own goals" or "lighting the blue touch paper"? The first, I think, is also an American usage. The second is not. pt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 13:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d8muu2Fbi9fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #425019 |
In article <e370453f-6394-4fe3-8188-25ac8f158389@googlegroups.com>, <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 8:36:27 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote: >> In article <m2zj1gjkzf.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>, >> Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> said: >> >> > And maybe a link to Charles Stross' story "A Tall Tail", in which ClF3 >> > does not appear but is relevant: >> > >> > http://www.tor.com/2012/07/20/a-tall-tail/ >> >> Finally got around to reading that. What caught my attention was a >> complete side point: am I ignorant of large swathes of U.S. culture >> that are quite unlike the parts I grew up with, or am I correct in >> thinking that somebody should tell Charlie Stross that >> seventy-year-old white lifetime mainstream Americans don't generally >> talk about "scoring own goals" or "lighting the blue touch paper"? > >The first, I think, is also an American usage. The second is not. > >pt I have never heard "own goal" used by an American. Though I am reminded of when Bullwinkle was playing for Wassamata U and would always run the same way regardless of what quarter it was.. -- ------ columbiaclosings.com What's not in Columbia anymore..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | petertrei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73540524-9bca-4e29-ab7f-24273dfa7932@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425020 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote: > In article <e370453f-6394-4fe3-8188-25ac8f158389@googlegroups.com>, > <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 8:36:27 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote: > >> In article <m2zj1gjkzf.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>, > >> Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> said: > >> > >> > And maybe a link to Charles Stross' story "A Tall Tail", in which ClF3 > >> > does not appear but is relevant: > >> > > >> > http://www.tor.com/2012/07/20/a-tall-tail/ > >> > >> Finally got around to reading that. What caught my attention was a > >> complete side point: am I ignorant of large swathes of U.S. culture > >> that are quite unlike the parts I grew up with, or am I correct in > >> thinking that somebody should tell Charlie Stross that > >> seventy-year-old white lifetime mainstream Americans don't generally > >> talk about "scoring own goals" or "lighting the blue touch paper"? > > > >The first, I think, is also an American usage. The second is not. > > I have never heard "own goal" used by an American. I'll accept that. 1. My knowledge of sportsball is very limited. 2. My own vocabulary is a hopeless jumble of English and American usages, due to my expatriate upbringing. But looking it up, I find that 'own goal' is used by this side of the pond, for example http://www.puckreport.com/2010/11/today-in-nhl-history-ryan-obyrnes-own.html ...though there's a risk that's contaminated by Canadians. pt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 09:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <992fd46c-26f6-421b-adce-8763e766e842@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425022 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 10:33:44 AM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 9:46:49 AM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > In article <e370453f-6394-4fe3-8188-25ac8f158389@googlegroups.com>,
> > <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 8:36:27 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote:
> > >> In article <m2zj1gjkzf.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> > >> Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> said:
> > >>
> > >> > And maybe a link to Charles Stross' story "A Tall Tail", in which ClF3
> > >> > does not appear but is relevant:
> > >> >
> > >> > http://www.tor.com/2012/07/20/a-tall-tail/
> > >>
> > >> Finally got around to reading that. What caught my attention was a
> > >> complete side point: am I ignorant of large swathes of U.S. culture
> > >> that are quite unlike the parts I grew up with, or am I correct in
> > >> thinking that somebody should tell Charlie Stross that
> > >> seventy-year-old white lifetime mainstream Americans don't generally
> > >> talk about "scoring own goals" or "lighting the blue touch paper"?
> > >
> > >The first, I think, is also an American usage. The second is not.
> >
> > I have never heard "own goal" used by an American.
>
> I'll accept that.
> 1. My knowledge of sportsball is very limited.
> 2. My own vocabulary is a hopeless jumble of English and American usages,
> due to my expatriate upbringing.
>
> But looking it up, I find that 'own goal' is used by this side of the pond,
> for example
> http://www.puckreport.com/2010/11/today-in-nhl-history-ryan-obyrnes-own.html
> ...though there's a risk that's contaminated by Canadians.
I've seen "own goal" in US usage, but it is more common among those
who follow the kinds of sports (hockey {field or ice}, association football,
lacrosse) where this is likely to come up. It has been known to happen in
basketball, for instance, when a player contesting a rebound accidentally
tip the ball in the basket he's defending. More rarely, a player dribbles
the ball in the wrong direction, confused about which goal his team is
attacking, and sinks a bucket. Due to the "backcourt violation" rule,
the play is likely to be whistled dead before he can shoot, if he crosses
the center line, but if it all happens in the backcourt, say, after a
stolen ball or intercepted pass, it can count.
Most sports terms in the USA come from baseball or gridiron football.
You can't have an own goal in baseball, and that would be an "own run."
US Football has the safety, where the ball carrier is tackled in his own
end zone: penalty is 2 points and the team scored upon has to kick off
to the team that scored (a "free kick.") There is "he lost yardage on
the play" or variations which have the meaning of not just not making
progress, but losing ground, but being tackled for a loss, or even
turning the ball over on downs is not as serious as running the ball into
the wrong end zone for 6 points.
I think most of us USians would get the sense of "own goal," but the
phrase isn't loasded in our cliche quiver, and we don't let it loose
all that often.
Kevin R
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 14:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <g70d2bhvoik80gdgq6scu53dcall8q6dt8@reader80.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #425024 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>I've seen "own goal" in US usage, but it is more common among those
>who follow the kinds of sports (hockey {field or ice}, association football,
>lacrosse) where this is likely to come up. It has been known to happen in
>basketball, for instance, when a player contesting a rebound accidentally
>tip the ball in the basket he's defending. More rarely, a player dribbles
>the ball in the wrong direction, confused about which goal his team is
>attacking, and sinks a bucket. Due to the "backcourt violation" rule,
>the play is likely to be whistled dead before he can shoot, if he crosses
>the center line, but if it all happens in the backcourt, say, after a
>stolen ball or intercepted pass, it can count.
>
>Most sports terms in the USA come from baseball or gridiron football.
>You can't have an own goal in baseball, and that would be an "own run."
>US Football has the safety, where the ball carrier is tackled in his own
>end zone: penalty is 2 points and the team scored upon has to kick off
>to the team that scored (a "free kick.") There is "he lost yardage on
>the play" or variations which have the meaning of not just not making
>progress, but losing ground, but being tackled for a loss, or even
>turning the ball over on downs is not as serious as running the ball into
>the wrong end zone for 6 points.
>
>I think most of us USians would get the sense of "own goal," but the
>phrase isn't loasded in our cliche quiver, and we don't let it loose
>all that often.
I think that sums it up pretty well, but I'd add one more detail -- an
American seventy years old did not grow up with soccer, and wouldn't
use it. A reasonably cosmopolitan thirty-something well might.
(Incidentally, I've never heard it used in the context of hockey that
I can remember; only soccer. And I grew up in Boston when the Bruins
were huge.)
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5bd2fd4-1a3b-4a8a-841e-354fe786a288@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425028 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 2:03:00 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:58:44 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I've seen "own goal" in US usage, but it is more common among those
> >who follow the kinds of sports (hockey {field or ice}, association football,
> >lacrosse) where this is likely to come up. It has been known to happen in
> >basketball, for instance, when a player contesting a rebound accidentally
> >tip the ball in the basket he's defending. More rarely, a player dribbles
> >the ball in the wrong direction, confused about which goal his team is
> >attacking, and sinks a bucket. Due to the "backcourt violation" rule,
> >the play is likely to be whistled dead before he can shoot, if he crosses
> >the center line, but if it all happens in the backcourt, say, after a
> >stolen ball or intercepted pass, it can count.
> >
> >Most sports terms in the USA come from baseball or gridiron football.
> >You can't have an own goal in baseball, and that would be an "own run."
> >US Football has the safety, where the ball carrier is tackled in his own
> >end zone: penalty is 2 points and the team scored upon has to kick off
> >to the team that scored (a "free kick.") There is "he lost yardage on
> >the play" or variations which have the meaning of not just not making
> >progress, but losing ground, but being tackled for a loss, or even
> >turning the ball over on downs is not as serious as running the ball into
> >the wrong end zone for 6 points.
> >
> >I think most of us USians would get the sense of "own goal," but the
> >phrase isn't loasded in our cliche quiver, and we don't let it loose
> >all that often.
>
> I think that sums it up pretty well, but I'd add one more detail -- an
> American seventy years old did not grow up with soccer, and wouldn't
> use it. A reasonably cosmopolitan thirty-something well might.
>
> (Incidentally, I've never heard it used in the context of hockey that
> I can remember; only soccer. And I grew up in Boston when the Bruins
> were huge.)
>
>
Steve Smith in the Edmonton/Calgary series that broke the Oilers'
consecutive Stanley Cup streak ring any bells? That's pure
Canadian-ness, there, but stateside hockey fans knew of it.
I'm an Islanders' fan. The Oilers broke our consecutive streak,
the "drive for five," so schadenfreude was involved in keeping it
in my memory.
The Bruins are still big, especially Chara.
Kevin R
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 03:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eaed2dd3-804c-41d6-a67c-02745787550f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425024 |
On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 17:58:49 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote: > I think most of us USians would get the sense of "own goal," but the > phrase isn't loasded in our cliche quiver, and we don't let it loose > all that often. How about "friendly fire"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Raymond Daley" <raymond.daley@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 11:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <72KVx.168482$He3.21061@fx37.am4> |
| In reply to | #425070 |
"Robert Carnegie" <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in message news:eaed2dd3-804c-41d6-a67c- > On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 17:58:49 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote: >> I think most of us USians would get the sense of "own goal," but the >> phrase isn't loasded in our cliche quiver, and we don't let it loose >> all that often. > > How about "friendly fire"? Actually that's a phrase for civilians. The correct Military term would be Blue On Blue. Or at least that's what the RAF calls it. Or called it when I served. I believe the US version is "Oh look, people on our side! Fire anyway with no trigger discipline!" One day Hollywood will release a movie that portrays the US Military as people who've actually been taught to fire a weapon correctly, ie:- single shots unless otherwise ordered. (This will never happen)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 18:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3091d989c7af69bf989bd4@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #425071 |
In article <72KVx.168482$He3.21061@fx37.am4>, raymond.daley@ntlworld.com says... > > "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in message > news:eaed2dd3-804c-41d6-a67c- > > On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 17:58:49 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote: > >> I think most of us USians would get the sense of "own goal," but the > >> phrase isn't loasded in our cliche quiver, and we don't let it loose > >> all that often. > > > > How about "friendly fire"? > > Actually that's a phrase for civilians. The correct Military term would be > Blue On Blue. > Or at least that's what the RAF calls it. Or called it when I served. > I believe the US version is "Oh look, people on our side! Fire anyway with > no trigger discipline!" No, it's "Oh, look, that bunch of smarmy Brits who insulted us at the club last week. Woops, my mistake, it's a bunch of terrorists." > One day Hollywood will release a movie that portrays the US Military as > people who've actually been taught to fire a weapon correctly, ie:- single > shots unless otherwise ordered. (This will never happen) One of these days they'll show a revolver going empty at six rounds, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 00:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <m5og2b1fetlrd3uoa881q527jjisvv21fu@reader80.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #425089 |
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:19:45 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <72KVx.168482$He3.21061@fx37.am4>, raymond.daley@ntlworld.com >says... >> >> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in message >> news:eaed2dd3-804c-41d6-a67c- >> > On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 17:58:49 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote: >> >> I think most of us USians would get the sense of "own goal," but the >> >> phrase isn't loasded in our cliche quiver, and we don't let it loose >> >> all that often. >> > >> > How about "friendly fire"? >> >> Actually that's a phrase for civilians. The correct Military term would be >> Blue On Blue. >> Or at least that's what the RAF calls it. Or called it when I served. >> I believe the US version is "Oh look, people on our side! Fire anyway with >> no trigger discipline!" > >No, it's "Oh, look, that bunch of smarmy Brits who insulted us at the >club last week. Woops, my mistake, it's a bunch of terrorists." > >> One day Hollywood will release a movie that portrays the US Military as >> people who've actually been taught to fire a weapon correctly, ie:- single >> shots unless otherwise ordered. (This will never happen) > >One of these days they'll show a revolver going empty at six rounds, >too. I actually saw that happen recently -- on "Gotham," maybe? Some current TV show. It was unusual enough that I noticed that it happened, but not so amazing I remember the details. -- My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 22:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d8r7nmFe5b5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #425089 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <72KVx.168482$He3.21061@fx37.am4>, raymond.daley@ntlworld.com >says... >> One day Hollywood will release a movie that portrays the US Military as >> people who've actually been taught to fire a weapon correctly, ie:- single >> shots unless otherwise ordered. (This will never happen) > >One of these days they'll show a revolver going empty at six rounds, >too. Apparently there was a lot of nerd-bait in Titanic. The camera viewpoint in the opening sequence cut across one of the smokestacks so you could see that there was no (significant) opening in the flat-topped stack like you'd expect from a CGI model that was never expected to be looked at from above. The revolver had seven shots. There were three or four other "continuity errors". But the fourth stack was a dummy, with only a tiny opening for the kitchen cookstoves. The revolver was an oddball model designed for seven shots. Etc. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n0aqgu$6ml$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #425089 |
On 10/21/15 3:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > One of these days they'll show a revolver going empty at six rounds, > too. Six round revolvers is not universal. Lots of 5 through 10 shot revolvers were made. Reference to such is what google is for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 18:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30932cc34372784a989bd6@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #425112 |
In article <n0aqgu$6ml$1@dont-email.me>, lal_truckee@yahoo.com says... > > On 10/21/15 3:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > > One of these days they'll show a revolver going empty at six rounds, > > too. > Six round revolvers is not universal. Lots of 5 through 10 shot > revolvers were made. Reference to such is what google is for. So how many hundred-round or thousand-round revolvers are there? You've clearly missed the point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 08:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0d8ef$knq$1@panix3.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #425131 |
In article <MPG.30932cc34372784a989bd6@news.eternal-september.org>, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> said: > lal_truckee@yahoo.com says... > >> Six round revolvers is not universal. Lots of 5 through 10 shot >> revolvers were made. Reference to such is what google is for. > > So how many hundred-round or thousand-round revolvers are there? Hmm. Technically speaking, would a Gatling gun be an N-round revolver? (It sure as hell revolved.) -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 08:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bcffb693-b83b-45b3-a7db-bb07792decb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425181 |
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 8:16:20 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote: > In article <MPG.30932cc34372784a989bd6@news.eternal-september.org>, > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> said: > > > lal_truckee@yahoo.com says... > > > >> Six round revolvers is not universal. Lots of 5 through 10 shot > >> revolvers were made. Reference to such is what google is for. > > > > So how many hundred-round or thousand-round revolvers are there? > > Hmm. Technically speaking, would a Gatling gun be an N-round revolver? > > (It sure as hell revolved.) The common term "revolver" usually refers to revolving pistols, but there were certainly all sorts of revolving long guns, either of the personal type, or the more artillery- piece style of the Gatling gun or its competitors, all of whom are ancestors of the "machine gun" we all know from WWI and later conventional conflicts. Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_revolving_rifle Kevin R
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | petertrei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <722a92c4-5514-433a-9835-5be58b8f5216@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425187 |
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote: > On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 8:16:20 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote: > > In article <MPG.30932cc34372784a989bd6@news.eternal-september.org>, > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> said: > > > > > lal_truckee@yahoo.com says... > > > > > >> Six round revolvers is not universal. Lots of 5 through 10 shot > > >> revolvers were made. Reference to such is what google is for. > > > > > > So how many hundred-round or thousand-round revolvers are there? > > > > Hmm. Technically speaking, would a Gatling gun be an N-round revolver? > > > > (It sure as hell revolved.) > > The common term "revolver" usually refers to revolving > pistols, but there were certainly all sorts of revolving > long guns, either of the personal type, or the more artillery- > piece style of the Gatling gun or its competitors, all of > whom are ancestors of the "machine gun" we all know from > WWI and later conventional conflicts. > > Like this: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_revolving_rifle Revolver-mechanism rifles had serious usage problems, as described in the linked article. They never became popular. pt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 14:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d8vksgFi3viU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #425188 |
petertrei@gmail.com wrote: >On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote: >> On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 8:16:20 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote: >> > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> said: >> > > So how many hundred-round or thousand-round revolvers are there? >> > >> > Hmm. Technically speaking, would a Gatling gun be an N-round revolver? >> > >> > (It sure as hell revolved.) >> >> The common term "revolver" usually refers to revolving >> pistols, but there were certainly all sorts of revolving >> long guns, either of the personal type, or the more artillery- >> piece style of the Gatling gun or its competitors, all of >> whom are ancestors of the "machine gun" we all know from >> WWI and later conventional conflicts. >> >> Like this: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_revolving_rifle > >Revolver-mechanism rifles had serious usage problems, >as described in the linked article. They never became >popular. I don't know much about guns, but the phrase "revolver long gun" brings to mind the "violin case" drum-based machine guns of the prohibition era so famous in so many movies. Are these the guns you say had such problems? -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 17:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fq8l2bp6art1l9l2r6jodm56i2esmi6nhe@reader80.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #425205 |
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:50:18 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >petertrei@gmail.com wrote: >>On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote: >>> On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 8:16:20 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote: >>> > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> said: > >>> > > So how many hundred-round or thousand-round revolvers are there? >>> > >>> > Hmm. Technically speaking, would a Gatling gun be an N-round revolver? >>> > >>> > (It sure as hell revolved.) >>> >>> The common term "revolver" usually refers to revolving >>> pistols, but there were certainly all sorts of revolving >>> long guns, either of the personal type, or the more artillery- >>> piece style of the Gatling gun or its competitors, all of >>> whom are ancestors of the "machine gun" we all know from >>> WWI and later conventional conflicts. >>> >>> Like this: >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_revolving_rifle >> >>Revolver-mechanism rifles had serious usage problems, >>as described in the linked article. They never became >>popular. > >I don't know much about guns, but the phrase "revolver long gun" >brings to mind the "violin case" drum-based machine guns of the >prohibition era so famous in so many movies. > >Are these the guns you say had such problems? No. Those Hollywood favorites are Thompson guns with a drum magazine. The same gun will take a straight magazine, and you'll see THAT version in WW2 movies. The Thompson is a submachine gun with a standard feed mechanism, NOT a revolver. The drum has the cartridges in a coil instead of a straight line, that's all. -- My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 16:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n0mcnf$8u3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #425131 |
On 10/22/15 3:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <n0aqgu$6ml$1@dont-email.me>, lal_truckee@yahoo.com says... >> >> On 10/21/15 3:19 PM, J. Clarke wrote: >>> One of these days they'll show a revolver going empty at six rounds, >>> too. >> Six round revolvers is not universal. Lots of 5 through 10 shot >> revolvers were made. Reference to such is what google is for. > > So how many hundred-round or thousand-round revolvers are there? > > You've clearly missed the point. > Does anyone remember the early TV _Your Show of Shows_ with Sid Caesar and Imogene Coca? They did a skit of _Shane_ where, as the shootout winds down, someone takes a last shot at Sid who, returning fire, remarks "The only seven shooter in the West." Stuck in my youthful mind. I may mis-remember the details, but that's pretty close. I wonder if the episode was captured on kinescope, or lost forever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 16:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA53BA6E456A0Ataustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #425089 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.3091d989c7af69bf989bd4@news.eternal-september.org:
> One of these days they'll show a revolver going empty at six
> rounds, too.
>
Revolver? The only time _any_ firearm runs out of ammo in a movie is
when the pacing calls for a smart-ass remark while reloading.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written
csiph-web