OneGuyFromBarlick

Oh dear.... there are words in there I use frequently! Does this mean I am a bad person? When something makes my crap detector whine I remember what Stafford Beer (LINK) told me when I asked him for an aphorism describing communication. He said "It doesn't matter what is said, how it is transmitted or how it is received. All that matters is what is understood." He knew a thing or two about communication! Here's how I remember him from Manchester Business School.....



So I suppose, basically, my personal bete noire is when a word is misused in that the meaning is wrong.

PS, I love obnubilate, had to look it up!

So did I, and find it comes from nubes, cloud...which is a coincidence as I've been reading a book written by Gavin Pretor-Pinney, the founder of the Cloud Appreciation Society. Very interesting stuff! Have a look at the visually rich web site: Cloud Appreciation Society

It seems that Stafford Beer's daughter was called 'Vanilla Beer'. Sounds like an interesting idea. I'd guess that like me, she spends a lot of time talking about her name to people.

Stafford was one of the most interesting men I have ever talked to. He told me some wonderful stories and at 3AM excused himself because he had to go and have a conversation with the night porter to whom he was acting as Guru..... (He was particularly interesting on his time in Chile as adviser on communications to Allende....)

Perhaps Tripps should put `float' on his list, another word suffering from ambiguous use. Today's Financial Times has a headline `Saudi Arabia looks to float world's largest oil producer'. Are they referring to an oil rig or an oil company?

Potty, Loopy..... The number of euphemisms we employ to describe any form of mental instability. Is this because it frightens us?

Kipper for Curtains
Back in Edwardian times when average people were trying 'to appear' to keep up with the Jones's they would live on a diet of cheap kippers so that they could save money to buy lace curtains for their main front window.

Never heard that one Cathy but it is the same kind of pejorative remark as "Fur coat no knickers".

We talked about the inappropriate use of `on the radar'. This morning there was an interview with someone on the radio about the stranding of whales on a beach. He was asked if the cause of the stranding was known and replied "We haven't found a smoking gun".

I heard him as well and it's a very descriptive phrase that I like. Gives exactly the right impression. He was using it to illustrate the fact that the autopsy on the whale wouldn't give any definitive proof of why the whales stranded.

What is the origin of 'tod' as in 'I'm staying here on my tod'?

could be Pat Malone's brother, Liz...

( Pat Malone...alone)

I'm sure Pats there on his tod too Maz!! but what country are they in?

On your Pat in Oz after Pat Malone. On your Tod in Cockney rhyming slang from Tod Sloan.

Ah...well there you go!
(My husband's parents were Cockney, so we have a lot of phrases bandied about here)

Thanks, trust the Aussies to make up their own!!

An invitation to an Annual Dinner and Dance with bit of a tongue -twister at the end.

I like that little saying - I've put it on here a long time ago.

He who knows, and knows not that he knows
is a fool - Show him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not
is a child - Teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows
is asleep - Wake him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows
is a wise man - Follow him

Now for what I came on to say -
I signed a contract yesterday . Didn't read it in detail of course - who does?
I read it today. Most of it was OK, and I don't think I'll come to any harm, but I don't understand these clauses. Is it me? Am I not clever enough, does everyone else understand them?

17.6 Where the words include(s), including or in particular are used in this agreement, they are deemed to have the words without limitation following them. Where the context permits, the words other and otherwise are illustrative and shall not limit the sense of the words preceding them.

17.9 This agreement may be executed in counterpart, each counterpart when executed and delivered shall constituted an original of this agreement. Both counterparts shall together constitute the same agreement. No counterpart shall be effective until each party has executed at least one counterpart.

I renewed my Contents insurance on the phone yesterday. By law the young man had to read the key elements of the policy to me and simply gabbled, I just kept saying yes. The verbal equivalent of small print in the contract?

Tripps wrote:I like that little saying - I've put it on here a long time ago.

He who knows, and knows not that he knows
is a fool - Show him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not
is a child - Teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows
is asleep - Wake him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows
is a wise man - Follow him[/i][/size]

Your first and third lines are the same. The accepted version is:

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, He is a fool - shun him
He who knows not and knows he knows not, He is simple - teach him;
He who knows and knows not he knows, He is asleep - wake him;
He who knows and knows he knows, He is wise; follow him.

As Captain Mainwaring said - 'I wondered who'd be the first to spot that'.

Thanks for the correction - good to see someone is paying attention.

Those contract clauses are gobbledegook to me. I suspect they've seen them somewhere else and thought, "Oh good, they sound, like, legal stuff, guys; let's add them in, it'll frighten the punters and deter them from trying to be too clever". But if challenged in court I suspect they wouldn't hold water as part of a consumer contract - the judge would probably say if it can't be understood by the average consumer then it's not a valid contract.

"Those contract clauses are gobbledegook to me"

That's a relief. I agree they are probably worthless. The absence of sufficient punctuation would surely invalidate the first clause. I am not worried.

No point worrying David. We all know that in the event of a claim the insurance companies will make their own interpretation of the clauses anyway and on testing in court many of these are found to be wrong. I suspect that this is one of the reasons why the contracts are so complicated and opaque, it gives wriggle room if money has to be paid out.

We used to enjoy the Radio 4 `News Quiz' but it's gone downhill recently and it feels like you have to be a member of the club to understand the `humour' now. In the most recent episode one of the newspaper clippings they read out was something about the dangers of walking in the forest and beating off bears. The panel and the audience seemed to think it was hilarious but we `didn't get it'. Perhaps we're just simple, naive country folk, old-fashioned and not `going forward' enough?