On 13 Mar 2005 00:30:51 GMT, dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

>
>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.
>
>Andre


You may want to try to find written collections of a former
Pennsylvania state supreme court justice named Musmanno, who was
famous for the color and passion of his own legal briefs - mostly
written in DISSENT of the supreme court majority.


------------------------------------

grizzlieantagonist{at}yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's
player of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
    - Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004


"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as
their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their
soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and
presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the
counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. 
Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be
placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must
be without.  It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men
of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their
fetters."
     
     - Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/13/05 12:57:00 AM ---