BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references

07 Jul 11 - 12:08 PM (#3183142)
Subject: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: MGM·Lion

Irritating incorrect but much perpetuated literary references:~

That which annoys me most is, I think, the constant designation of the afternoon's entertainment attended by Alice in Wonderland as "The Mad Hatter's Tea Party".

a. The caps always used to name him would suggest that the Mad Hatter is the character's name; in fact, although described to Alice by the Cheshire Cat as being mad, he is only ever referred to by the author as the Hatter ~~ just as the other character so described, the March Hare, is not referred to as the Mad March Hare.

b. At the end of chapter 6, Alice decides, given the choice, to visit the March Hare rather than the Hatter, as she has seen Hatters before. So the party at which she arrives at the beginning of chapter 7 is not, I repeat, as so commonly but erroneously and irritatingly named, the Mad Hatter's Tea Party at all, but the March Hare's Tea Party. {The party's giver is not named in the title of the chapter, which is simply "A Mad Tea Party" ~ another fact frequently misapprehended and misquoted.}

I once raised this anomaly with my friend Nigel Rees, the well-known quotation maven, prolific author, presenter of BBC's "Quote-Unquote" and editor of the associated Newsletter. He suggested that the common mistake is due to the fact that the Hatter is by far the most talkative and prominent member of the party. That is true; but he is not, I nevertheless maintain, the occasion's host, and should not therefore IMO be so undeservedly thus credited.

Who has any similar literary annoyances to draw to our attention?

~Michael~

---

07 Jul 11 - 12:11 PM (#3183148)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: GUEST,leeneia

"A rose is a rose is a rose."   - wrong

The book was about a girl named Rose, and it's "Rose is a rose is a rose."

---

07 Jul 11 - 12:19 PM (#3183151)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: GUEST,livelylass

Not exactly an inaccurate literary reference as such, but it really does disappoint and frustrate me when (inevitably) beautifully crafted period dialogue (particularly if witty, as in the case of Austen) is firstly slashed to shreds by TV screenwriters in order to pare it down to the bare coat-hanger plot minimum and then crudely wedged back together with a trowel-full of "sore thumb" anachronistic phrasings and idioms, innit?

---

07 Jul 11 - 12:37 PM (#3183164)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: GUEST, topsie

Not quite a literary reference, but I often hear peopple interviewed on the radio saying that their passport describes their occupation as, for example, 'journalist'. I don't know about the passports of other countries but it is many years since British passports included the holder's occupation.

---

07 Jul 11 - 01:33 PM (#3183204)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: catspaw49

Y'all need to eat a bran muffin or somethin'..............might need two or three.............maybe double down on the laxatives........................


Spaw

---

07 Jul 11 - 02:54 PM (#3183262)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

None of the tabloid writers (and few of the public), has read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in the original. Some have seen the motion picture or versions thereof.

I have read it, but so long ago that if someone told me that Jimminy Cricket was one of the characters, I would have to think awhile before disagreeing.

But yes, such mistakes in reports do bother me, since it takes only a few minutes to check them online.

---

07 Jul 11 - 04:01 PM (#3183327)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: autolycus

Actually

"The line is from Gertrude Stein's poem Sacred Emily, written in 1913 and published in 1922, in Geography and Plays. The verbatim line is actually, 'Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose':

"Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose
Loveliness extreme.
Extra gaiters,
Loveliness extreme.
Sweetest ice-cream.
Pages ages page ages page ages."

Just to be accuratye.:-)

---

07 Jul 11 - 04:07 PM (#3183335)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: Rapparee

Like it says in the Bible, "The Devil can quote scripture."

---

07 Jul 11 - 04:14 PM (#3183341)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: autolycus

I find journalistic inaccuracies more annoying. They are forever passing on long-shot popular fallacies and linguistic flaws.

---

07 Jul 11 - 04:22 PM (#3183344)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: Jim Dixon

I generally don't get worked up about such stuff. Sometimes historians, critics, etc., ascribe names to things that didn't even have names when they were new, and the names stick.

A lot of people would say Henry Fielding wrote "Tom Jones" although the original title page said "The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling." Would you call them wrong? I wouldn't.

If you search Mudcat, you will find lots of references to "Pills to Purge Melancholy" but the title page called it "Wit and Mirth: or Pills to Purge Melancholy; Being a Collection of the Best Merry Ballads and Songs, Old and New...." I'd blame D'Urfey himself for choosing a subtitle that was cleverer and more memorable than the title—or maybe whoever decided to set the word PILLS in larger type than anything else on the page.

It does annoy me when people who post at Mudcat carelessly misstate the title of a song, although the song has a known and easily verifiable origin, or misspell the songwriter or performer's name, when that, too, is easily verifiable. I've seen people do this even when the correct information has been given earlier in the same thread.

---

07 Jul 11 - 04:31 PM (#3183351)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: Amos

My hackles always go up when illiterate countrymen quote Juliet as though she were asking Romeo's whereabouts.

It just ain't right.

---

07 Jul 11 - 04:43 PM (#3183358)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: catspaw49

..........and he popped up an he sez, "Im rightcheer!"


Spaw

---

07 Jul 11 - 05:10 PM (#3183383)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

He should have "run Venezuela."

---

07 Jul 11 - 05:38 PM (#3183398)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: Art Thieme

Genesis starts with the words, "In the big inning..."

I got half way through the book before I realized it wasn't about baseball at all!! ------Art

---

07 Jul 11 - 05:49 PM (#3183405)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: MGM·Lion

Amos ~~ Yes,thnk you, that's the other one indeed. Juliet's "Wherefore" doesn't mean where?, it means why?.

~M~

---

07 Jul 11 - 07:07 PM (#3183444)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: GUEST,Bob L

J. "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou, Romeo?"
R. "Juliet my love, I am herefore."
J. "What? Art thou herefore?"
R. "Thou knowest very well what I'm here for!"

...from the radio program Take It From Here, donkey's years ago.

---

07 Jul 11 - 07:51 PM (#3183458)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: Bill D

"Alas, poor Yorrick... I knew him, Horatio" - often quoted as ".... I knew him well."

---

08 Jul 11 - 01:06 AM (#3183558)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: Gurney

Michael, you must be an English teacher to actually come across a reference to Carroll's masterpiece. I don't think that has EVER happened to me! ;-)

Perfectly understandable, though, since hatters were driven mad by Mercury fumes, and hares in March behave madly, randy little sods.

And, as an aside, a masterpiece was never a 'best' work, but the piece that an apprentice made to prove to the examining craftsmen that he was fit to join their number, to be a craftsman himself.

---

08 Jul 11 - 01:43 AM (#3183567)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: Sandra in Sydney

autolycus said

I find journalistic inaccuracies more annoying. They are forever passing on long-shot popular fallacies and linguistic flaws.

We also suffer from a lack of sub-editors here - my favourite paper got rid of them & outsourced! I assume not every story headed their way from some of the articles I see.

So you find stuff like a reference to the Queen (of Britain) as Her Highness (Majesty = Ruler, Highness = family members for those without British background or wide reading.) I saw another good/bad example last week & can't remember it. I know I'll see more.

Back in the days when desktop publishing was widespread, the Govt agency where I worked got rid of the Publishing Section as every section could produce their own works. Well, you can imagine the consternation when a man rang us & courteously informed us that our major publication had typos. Someone/s forgot they were working on templates that included last year's date in chapter heading! Oops, fortunately he wasn't the sort to call the media

sandra (picky pedant)

---

08 Jul 11 - 02:12 AM (#3183571)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyinly inaccurate lit refs
From: MGM·Lion

Gurney ~~ long retired. But indeed I find constant refs to this solecism: the last one, which moved me to post the OP, in last week's Spectator.

I think Carroll's jeu of creating the two 'characters' based on the two standard similes, 'Mad As a Hatter' & 'Mad As A March Hare' [which of course simply = a hare in March, their rutting season: there is no such actual being as 'A March Hare'!] a consummate piece of brilliance.

Re 'masterpiece' ~~ it can mean both an apprentice's final qualifying artefact and a fine artist's finest piece - or indeed, any work of art which might be so considered. Few words mean ONLY one thing to the extent that it is incorrect to use them in any other sense, as you perhaps appear to be implying regarding this word.

Sandra ~ a drift, but thanks for reminder that HRH instead of HM for the Queen is another pig-ignorant manifestation that always makes me see red - or do I mean blue?

~M~

---

08 Jul 11 - 04:12 AM (#3183596)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Joe Offer

We had a brilliant priest who used literary reference in his sermons quite often, but his brilliance was often a bit warped. In one of his sermons, he talked about having to sing like you don't need the money, loving like you'll never get hurt, and dancing like nobody is watching. He attributed the quote to William Shakespeare.
I really tried hard to keep my mouth shut; but in the end, I couldn't resist telling him I heard that concept in a country song recorded by Kathy Mattea. The song was "Come from the Heart," written by Susanna Clark & Richard Leigh.
Now, I suppose that Clark & Leigh might have gotten their ideas from Shakespeare, but somehow I doubt that.

Another time, he wanted me to read something to the congregation that contained a quote from St. Teresa of Avila - but the quote was grammatically illogical, so I changed it to something that made sense [mind you, Teresa was Spanish, and I can't blame her for having less-than-grammatical English ;-) ]
The priest swore he'd never have me speak before the congregation again, but it wasn't long before he forgot his pledge....and I continued to correct the grammar on stuff he'd have me read.

Bright guy -I think he had two doctorates- but a bit scrambled....

-Joe-

---

08 Jul 11 - 04:46 AM (#3183607)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: GUEST, topsie

I suspect that when some people don't know the origin of a quotation they just guess "wildly", and usually pick on Oscar Wilde, or Shakespeare, or the Bible.

---

08 Jul 11 - 04:53 AM (#3183611)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: MGM·Lion

... or Shaw or Dr Johnson...

---

08 Jul 11 - 07:36 AM (#3183664)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Lighter

Wot, no "Frankenstein" vs. "Frankenstein's monster"?

Actually, I call the monster Frankenstein too (like everyone else), because it's shorter. Also, he was sort of Victor's "son," right? So he should have the same surname.

---

08 Jul 11 - 07:40 AM (#3183665)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: McGrath of Harlow

Or Bob Dylan

---

08 Jul 11 - 07:48 AM (#3183666)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: autolycus

This kind of thing is right up my street as I collect books on misquotations, on popular fallacies [things that people think are true but haint] and dictinaries of quotations.

I rememerb hearing on the Beeb's Any Questions [radio] the then U.S. Ambassodor to the U.K. quoting that thing about [supposedly] Washington chopping down a cherry tree and saying you couldn't tell a lie. Yet the story came from a poular biography and there is no evidence for the story.

One I like is the misquotation of Marx that "religion is the opium of the people". That produces a misinterpretation.

Apparently Marx actually spoke of religion as "the opiate of the people." Iow, he wasn't saying it vblissed people out, just that it made people quite, accepting and unquestioning.



The other author of the 'source unknown' type typically fingered is Twain.

---

08 Jul 11 - 02:36 PM (#3183874)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Jim Dixon

The opium/opiate thing could be a translation problem. Didn't Marx write in German?

---

08 Jul 11 - 02:42 PM (#3183877)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Jim Dixon

Speaking of annoying inaccuracies, I see the word in the thread title has been changed from "annoyinly" to "annoyingly." I'll bet it was Joe Offer who changed it, since his was the first message to appear after the change. Bravo, Joe!

I would have said something earlier, but sometimes the correction is more annoyin' than the misteak!

---

08 Jul 11 - 03:43 PM (#3183909)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Joe Offer

I really enjoy the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. It often has quotations in their original language - but it has Marx in English. Marx lived in London for much of his life, so I would assume that at least part of his writing was in English. Here's the quotation on religion from Oxford Dictionary of Quotations:

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heard of a heartless world...it is the opium of the people.
A Contribution to the Critique of Hegl's Philosophy of Right (1843-1844)

I think this was written before Marx moved to London, so I won't guess what was the original language, or whether Marx or somebody else did the translation.

Whatever the case, I think that "opium" and "opiate" would have exactly the same meaning in this context.

---

Also note this quote from English writer and clergyman Charles Kingsley (1819-1875):

We have used the Bible as if it was a constable's handbook — an opium-dose for keeping beasts of burden patient while they are being overloaded.
Letters to the Chartists, No. 2

-Joe-

---

08 Jul 11 - 04:59 PM (#3183944)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: robomatic

If the hatter is mad, just not termed by Carroll such, it is only inaccurate if you Capitalize 'mad'. So it is perfectly correct to refer to the mad hatter's tea party. If you want to call out the party, then Mad Hatter's Tea Party would be the way to go, inasumch as to term it: mad Hatter's Tea Party might be taken to refer to the fact that the party was mad not its participants.

So I don't agree with the lead post, though I do share the attitude as I have my own 'buttons' just can't think of them at the moment.

---

08 Jul 11 - 05:34 PM (#3183960)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Amos

How would you have a mad party if none of the participants were mad?



A

---

08 Jul 11 - 06:14 PM (#3183978)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Well gee whiz, was the hatter in Alice really mad? More "annoying inaccuracies."

The tea party was characterized as mad, not the hatter.

Than that libelous Cheshire cat said, "In that direction lives a hatter: and in That direction lives a March Hare. Visit either you like, they're both mad."

Visit that fount of all miscellaneous knowledge, and several possible explanations are given for the origin of the phrase.

What, me worry?

---

08 Jul 11 - 06:30 PM (#3183982)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: catspaw49

SweetJesusfuckinavirgin..................Y'all need an entire truckload of bran muffins...........or is that Bran muffins.................maybe bran Muffins......or Bran Muffins..................or.......or......aw just fuckaduck....................or is that FuckAduck ........or............y'all go to hell.............or HELL.....................................fuckit..............



sPaW

---

08 Jul 11 - 06:57 PM (#3184004)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Don Firth

This tends to set my teeth on edge.

A lot of journalists (and others) recently are given to misuse of the expression "begging the question," when what they really mean is "raising the question." Such as, "The government is spending much more money than it is taking in in taxes. This begs the question, how are we ever going to balance the budget?"

Aristotle, who worked out the rules of formal logic more than two millennia ago, would really roll his eyes at THAT one

(Too bad that, to most people, Aristotle is "just some mouldy old Greek," but HE was the philosopher who worked out THE system of formal reasoning that is the basis of all science; the principles that form the foundation of rational thinking. We could sure use a little of that these days. . . .)

"The fallacy of petitio principia, or 'begging the question,' is committed 'when a proposition which requires proof is assumed to have already been proven,' or more generally when an assumption is used in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it."

Muddy to explain, but here's an example:

"Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific effect."

Which doesn't explain anything. If something has a "soporific effect," that means it induces sleep.

More examples of Begging the Question

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."

Interviewer: "Your resumé looks impressive, but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "I can vouch for her."

In political arguments discussions, people (including right here on Mudcat) use that particular logical fallacy A LOT!

Among many others, I'm afraid.

Don Firth

---

08 Jul 11 - 07:20 PM (#3184020)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Now the fact of the matter is.....

---

08 Jul 11 - 07:22 PM (#3184022)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Joe Offer

'Twas brillig, and the fruminous bandersnatch did something to the slithy troves, but I can't remember the rest of it....

---

08 Jul 11 - 08:37 PM (#3184065)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: catspaw49

I knew a girl that had a fruminous bandersnatch. AS it turned out, I found out just in time that she also had the clap..............


Spaw

---

08 Jul 11 - 11:41 PM (#3184138)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: MGM·Lion

Spaw ~~

Bandersnatches are frumious, not fruminous. You can frume them if you frike, but you cant free them in the frark...

Fruv

~FRichael~

---

09 Jul 11 - 01:50 AM (#3184167)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: catspaw49

Franks!

spaW

---

09 Jul 11 - 03:25 AM (#3184177)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: autolycus

I agree about Don and 'begging the question.'

I did send a couple of emails to BBC radio 5 live and one to Private Eye.

I gave an example of begging the question and said what they really meant to say was 'that raises the question'. I said I was sure if they said to the mirror over and over 'that raises the question', it'd eventually become natural.

The Beeb actually responded and for a while, especially on the Today programme, they took to saying 'that poses the question' [Brits can't be told]. Now they have got to either 'that raises the question' of 'the question then is'.

What may have done the trick was my p.s. to the Eye:-

"P.S. I thought you lot were hedgemecated."

---

09 Jul 11 - 04:00 AM (#3184188)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: GUEST, topsie

Do you think there is any chance of discouraging BBC interviewers from beginning questions with "Because ..."?

---

09 Jul 11 - 04:31 AM (#3184197)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: autolycus

Don't think it's restricted to the venerable Beeb.:-)

One can but try.

I get more irritated by the inability to ask one question and thn wait for the answer.

Instead, they ask a second, even if it's a straight duplication of the first; or, as you remind me, they follow the question with an explanation of the question; and even more, they then propose answers.

---

09 Jul 11 - 05:06 AM (#3184203)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: GUEST,livelylass

Or on receiving a perfectly good answer to a question, the interviewer then rephrases the answer as a question:

Interviewer: How do you make jam, Mr Jam Maker?
Jam Maker: I boil sugar with fruit until it sets and then I pop it in jars.
Interviewer: You make jam by boiling fruit with sugar until it sets? And then you put it into jars?
Jam Maker: Yes, that's right. That's how I make jam.

---

09 Jul 11 - 05:10 AM (#3184206)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: GUEST, topsie

What Mr Jam Maker usually says is "Yes, absolutely"!

---

09 Jul 11 - 06:02 AM (#3184223)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Doug Chadwick

I know the correct lines from the film "Casablanca" but, when I sang "As Time Goes By" at an open-mic night, I expected a quip of "play it again, Doug" from the audience. I was not disappointed. The actual line would have been far less snappy.

I think of it as "strawberry flavour" food. It has only a passing resemblance to the actual taste of strawberries, but it is recognisable and, in most cases, is close enough for me.


DC

---

09 Jul 11 - 06:29 AM (#3184231)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: MGM·Lion

Another misapprehension is that it was Bogart who said the line so frequently misquoted. In fact it was Ingrid Bergman.

~M~

---

09 Jul 11 - 06:36 AM (#3184234)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: GUEST,Marianne S.

Oh, I love threads like this!

---

09 Jul 11 - 07:39 AM (#3184259)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: GUEST, topsie

Mr Jam Maker again - what he is even more likely to say is "Yes no, absolutely" demonstrating, perhaps, that he is hedging his bets and is willing to go along with absolutely anything the interviewer suggests.

---

09 Jul 11 - 08:13 AM (#3184265)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Lighter

Every radio and TV news reader and commentator in the US has been saying "beg the question" for at least a decade.

Once I started noticing, I soon realized that in the 21st Century they almost *never* say "raise the question."

To "beg" seems to be more colorful than to "raise."

When people really mean "beg the question," they now say things like "evade the question," "overlook the question," and "dodge the question." Of course, they've always said these things too.

Since to "dodge" the question makes more apparent sense than to "beg" it, and to "beg the question" superficially seems to mean to "demand that one ask," the new pattern of usage is ineradicable.

---

09 Jul 11 - 08:28 AM (#3184270)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: GUEST,Marianne S.

'I have a fascination for bears (or whatever)' does not mean 'I am fascinated by bears', it means 'Bears are fascinated by me.'

And 'commence to begin' is absolutely, totally, completely, utterly beyond the pale. And yes, I do know the meaning and origin of 'beyond the pale'

---

09 Jul 11 - 08:30 AM (#3184271)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: GUEST, topsie

The frustrating thing for us pedants is that language does change, and if enough ppeople use an expression with a new meaning, then sooner or later that is its meaning. New editions of the dictionaries are brought out, reflecting such changes.

---

09 Jul 11 - 08:34 AM (#3184273)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: GUEST,Marianne S.

Oh, I know, I don't mind evolutionary change, but we are losing the ability to express shades of meaning. For example, 'uninterested' and 'disinterested' don't mean the same.

---

09 Jul 11 - 08:37 AM (#3184274)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: GUEST, topsie

Our local free newspaper had a feature on Edinburgh, recommending it for a short break and praising the many things a visitor could do while there, including the statement that "A visit to the theatre never fails to disappoint."

---

09 Jul 11 - 08:45 AM (#3184275)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: GUEST,Marianne S.

I love that!

There was an ad campaign for some skin cream or other which referred to the ease with which it was 'adsorbed' - until someone pointed out that 'adsorb' is not a posh scientific way of saying 'absorb'but means 'To accumulate on a surface' - exactly the opposite and exactly what you don't want in a moisturizer.

---

09 Jul 11 - 10:09 AM (#3184312)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Amos

The first law of threads, good M, is not to piss into the wind.


A

---

09 Jul 11 - 11:06 AM (#3184344)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: catspaw49

The Mudcat Cafe is about tradition. Tradition in music first brought us together and the respect we have for tradition often binds the wounds of many an argument. From the early days of this site we have naturally formed many traditions which we now hold in in great reverence.

As a verbal community we enjoy our own words whether relevant or not so the hijacking of threads is a tradition long accepted if not always desired. A thread which has passed ten posts and is still on topic is considered to be outside the tradition and in bad taste.

We have no respect for the wishes or even demands of the OP of a thread. We proudly reserve the right to not give a shit about an OP's wishes. OP's that complain to Max's sniveling little toadie Joe Offer are considered whining titty babies and shunned by the community.

Now get your act together Michael and respect these grand traditions which are every bit as ridiculous as so many others we hold dear.


Spaw

---

09 Jul 11 - 11:17 AM (#3184351)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Lighter

Getting back to the main topic: both Mark Twain and Abraham Lincoln are often credited with things they didn't say.

Americans tend to attribute almost any moral or spiritual platitude to the Bible:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/thats-not-in-the-bible/

---

09 Jul 11 - 11:31 AM (#3184367)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: autolycus

Lighter

'Since to "dodge" the question makes more apparent sense than to "beg" it, and to "beg the question" superficially seems to mean to "demand that one ask," the new pattern of usage is ineradicable.'


You will see, I hope from my
autolycus - PM
Date: 09 Jul 11 - 03:25 AM

that it is not ineradicable. Journos and broadcasters don't like to be thought of as ill-educated or illogical.

Give them that impression, as I did, and............

---

09 Jul 11 - 11:50 AM (#3184384)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: catspaw49

"Getting back to the main topic: both Mark Twain and Abraham Lincoln are often credited with things they didn't say.".......Lighter

LMAO.......Okay Lighter, just out of curiosity, what in the hell would lead you to believe that is the main topic?


Spaw

---

09 Jul 11 - 12:40 PM (#3184425)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: Lighter

I'll let the OP decide that.

---

09 Jul 11 - 02:21 PM (#3184486)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: catspaw49

Thank you Michael. You may proceed.


Spaw

---

09 Jul 11 - 03:40 PM (#3184514)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: MGM·Lion

Thank you, Spaw, Sir, grovelgrovelgrovel [aside] teeheeheehee again

Well, I do note that someone has started a new "Sloppy use of language" thread.

Coincidence? Or did somebody, mirabile dictu, actually listen to Michael for once!

Nah!!!



~M~

---

10 Jul 11 - 02:10 AM (#3184709)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: autolycus

The following is the most widely-disseminated erroneous quote on the WWW.

"The statement that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" is often attributed to Burke. Burke never said this"

It was in editions of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. When the editor was challenged about the accuracy, she said they were satill looking for it. However


'in 1770, he wrote in Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents that "when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." '

In the next post, I'll give a link to an interesting site which looks at a huge number of variants of the quote.

---

10 Jul 11 - 02:14 AM (#3184711)
Subject: RE: BS: Annoyingly inaccurate literary references
From: autolycus

Here we go

http://tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote.html



P.S. I have had the 'how to make a blue clicky' explained, but never in a 1. You hit key x; 2. You hit key y; 3. You hit key j et cetera, which is the only method of explaining these things that ever seems to work for me.

Nor have I worked out how you put more than one link/c&p into one post without losing the previous ones.

---