In article , dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA 
says...
> 
> Grizzlie Antagonist (grizzlieantagonist{at}earthlink.net) writes:
> > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:50:56 -0800, Mark Borgerson
> >  wrote:
> > 
> >>In article , 
> >>grizzlieantagonist{at}earthlink.net says...
> >>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:58 -0800, Mark Borgerson
> >>>  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> >In article , 
> >>> >grizzlieantagonist{at}earthlink.net says...
> >>> >> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:15:49 -0800, Mark Borgerson
> >>> >>  wrote:
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> >In article
, 
> >>> >> >greg1199{at}yahoo.com says...
> >>> >> >> 
> >>> >> >> Viking wrote:
> >>> >> >> > Macy's ad--men standing around,
waiting obediantly to carry what the
> >>> >> >> > woman buys. Text: "Golfers
bring caddies. Shoppers bring husbands."
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > Let them know what you think:
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >>
http://www.macys.com/catalog/syndicated/remote/remotesyndication.ognc?Brand=FDSSURVEY
> >>> >> >> 
> >>> >> >> My response to the add:
> >>> >> >> 
> >>> >> >> Despite the stated purpose of this
comment box, I cannot tell you of an
> >>> >> >> in-store experience, because I will no
longer be in any of your stores.
> >>> >> >>  Why?  I find one of your recent
advertisements greatly offensive and
> >>> >> >> insulting.  The add shows men standing
around, waiting obediantly to
> >>> >> >> carry what their wives buy. The text
reads, "Golfers bring caddies.
> >>> >> >> Shoppers bring husbands."
> >>> >> >> 
> >>> >> >> Firstly, whoever wrote that is a flat
sexist who thinks of men as
> >>> >> >> little more than servants women use to
do the heavy lifting.  Also, has
> >>> >> >> it occurred to you that men do, at
times, use your store?  This will
> >>> >> >> undoubtedly come as a shock to someone
dim enough to liken married men
> >>> >> >> to golf caddies, but the floor space
you use to sell men's clothing
> >>> >> >> often attracts .... men, and you
arrogantly take them for granted when
> >>> >> >> you insult them.
> >>> >> >> 
> >>> >> >> Why do you insult men in an effort to
woo female shoppers?  Is it your
> >>> >> >> opinion that women enjoy seeing men
insulted?  Is it therefore your
> >>> >> >> opinion that most women, even married
women, hold men in some degree of
> >>> >> >> contempt?  What would lead you to
believe such a thing about women?
> >>> >> >> 
> >>> >> >> If I receive some incentive from you, I
may reconsider whether to
> >>> >> >> enter, ever again, one of your stores. 
Otherwise, Dillards is just as
> >>> >> >> good, and they don't insult men for fun
and profit.
> >>> >> >> 
> >>> >> >You could have added:   "Since when are
the golfers using the caddies'  
> >>> >> >money  to pay the greens fees?"
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >Mark Borgerson
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> Really, BM?
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> If someone else had said what you just said, you
would have responded
> >>> >> by challenging that person to prove that women
use their husband's
> >>> >> money to shop in all instances.
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> And then if that person had bothered to respond
that married women use
> >>> >> their husband's money to shop in MOST instances,
you would have
> >>> >> responded, "That's probably true, but can
you PROVE it?  And aren't
> >>> >> there a large number of unmarried female
shoppers?  And besides,
> >>> >> aren't most married women at least employed
PART-TIME, so who's to say
> >>> >> whose money they're spending?"
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> In the end, you would have pedanticized this
secondary factual issue
> >>> >> to death in order to draw heat away from the
overriding issue of
> >>> >> whether this ad was appropriate - and you
probably would have found
> >>> >> some other reason to justify the ad.
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> So you're willing to allow yourself the freedom
to criticize
> >>> >> women-firstism once in a while, are you?  When
are you going to allow
> >>> >> others that same freedom?
> >>> 
> >>> >I've never tried to stop anyone from criticizing
anything.  I just try
> >>> >to point out those instances when  their arguments
get a bit ridiculous.
> >>> >The analogy between shoppers and  was faulty and I
pointed it out.
> >>> 
> >>> >Thank you for filling in the details.
> >>> 
> >>> I didn't fill in any details.  I simply pointed out how you were
> >>> holding yourself to a different standard than you hold
others, and I
> >>> still maintain that.
> >>> 
> >>Well I still admire your pedantry, whether real or simulated.   ;-)
> >>> 
> >>> >>Is 'pedanticize' even a real word?  I couldn't
find it in any of the
> >>> >online dictionaries.  Maybe  it only appears in those special 
> >>> >dictionaries they give to lawyers!   ;-)
> >>> >
> >>> >Mark Borgerson
> >>> 
> >>> It probably isn't a real word.  I tried to find in my dictionary a
> >>> verb form of "pedant" or "pedantic"
and couldn't find one - so I
> >>> exercised some creative liberties to manufacture
"pedanticize" because
> >>> it seemed to fit.
> >>
> >>I think it worked OK.   Life would be pretty frustrating if everything
> >>we wrote had to conform either to the standards of technical manuals
> >>or legal briefs.
> >>
> >>Mark Borgerson
> > 
> > What makes you think that legal briefs are required to be boring and
> > conventional?
> > 
> > I once worked in a firm across the hall from a defense firm that did
> > some work for the Los Angeles Dodgers.
> > 
> > Some fan sued the Dodgers for being hit by a foul ball, and I read a
> > brief written by the Dodger's firm which closed with the last stanza
> > from "Casey at the Bat".
> 
> Well, why not ? A West Wing episode had briefs coming to the staff,
> that a Federal judge was issueing plural decisions, in writing, all
> containing some iambic ( sp? ) pentameter.
>
My point wasn't  a complaint that either legal briefs or technical
manuals HAVE to be either boring or conventional----although 
there are more conventions for both types of writing.  I was 
simply pointing out that you have less freedom to make up
words than you  do when posting to the internet.


Mark Borgerson



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/13/05 4:56:55 AM ---