snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   SLC (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   Things you recently figured out (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=88602)

TallGeekyGirl 07 February 2014 07:56 PM

Things you recently figured out
 
I just recently discovered the "New Posts" feature of this website, despite having been a member for almost 10 years.

Capt. Picard's Borg name, Locutus, is based on the Latin word loqui, "to speak," from which we get "loquaciousness" and "elocution," among other words. Seem apt, given that he was the single voice of the Collective at that time.

WildaBeast 07 February 2014 09:23 PM

I only very recently learned what a "Deuce Coupe" like in the Beach Boys' song is.

smittykins 07 February 2014 09:41 PM

On a snopes-related note, I recently realized that we have several American snopesters living abroad--ganzfeld, Ramblin' Dave, Die Capacitrix and Der Induktionator(and that the last two are married to each other). There's probably more I'm forgetting. :)

On a non-snopes note, I used to wonder "Why do we yell 'Timber!' when a tree falls?" Then it finally hit me: Timber=wood. And what are trees made of? :duh: :fish:

lyriccoloratura 09 February 2014 02:55 AM

There is a restaurant nearby called "The Friendly Toast." I just recently realized it wasn't referring to gregarious warmed bread.

Lyric-cheers!-coloratura

Seaboe Muffinchucker 10 February 2014 03:23 PM

I thought this sort of thing was what the "Things you should know but didn't" thread was for? Do we really need two threads for this?

Seaboe

GenYus234 10 February 2014 03:44 PM

Maybe that is a future TGG post? :D

ASL 11 February 2014 08:04 AM

Iraq is analogous to Vietnam after all, just not strictly parallel. We're not the Americans, we're the French, and instead of losing at a metaphorical "Dien Bien Phu" we were actually successful militarily but we still left, much as I suspect even a victorious France wouldn't have stayed in Indochina forever (de-colonialization was the trend pretty much everywhere else, succesful insurgency or no). The insurgency was always going to be there, waiting for another chance, only in Vietnam, as history played out (with a decisive defeat of the French military) they only needed that "other chance" in (the southern) half of the county. Now the question is could our metaphorical "unified anti-Communist Vietnemese government" (our present Government of Iraq) have defeated the resurgent Viet Minh post-withdrawal (in the alternate timeline in which the French were undefeated and left a single unified Vietnamese government behind)? We shall see...

Silkenray 11 February 2014 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smittykins (Post 1800793)
On a snopes-related note, I recently realized that we have several American snopesters living abroad--ganzfeld, Ramblin' Dave, Die Capacitrix and Der Induktionator(and that the last two are married to each other). There's probably more I'm forgetting. :)

Me too. But you could be excused for not noticing, as I'm quite anglicized these days - at least until I open up my mouth! :lol:

Jay Temple 11 February 2014 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smittykins (Post 1800793)
On a snopes-related note, I recently realized that we have several American snopesters living abroad--ganzfeld, Ramblin' Dave, Die Capacitrix and Der Induktionator(and that the last two are married to each other). There's probably more I'm forgetting. :)

Heh. I knew Die and Der were married to each other, but I didn't know they're American. (I never got around to asking the familiar question, native speaker abroad or learned really well.)

A Turtle Named Mack 11 February 2014 08:21 PM

TYRFO - In A Charlie Brown Christmas, the scraggly tree represents Charlie Brown (and he in turn represents all of us), trying to stand up and be special on our own, but needing the attention, support and encouragement of friends, family and neighbors to really be the best we can be. I am not one who picks up on symbolism too readily, especially since people who seem to find lots of it seem to overdo it, so I turn off to it.

Lainie 11 February 2014 08:35 PM

:confused: How does one "overdo" seeing symbolism in things?

ETA: If g-you see it, you see it.

Richard W 19 February 2014 01:19 PM

I didn't "figure it out" but I just found out that fava beans (of "... with fava beans and a nice Chianti" fame) are the same thing as broad beans. I don't like broad beans much, so that's put me off the idea.

This was thanks to the article below, from which I also learned that falafel is often made with broad beans mixed in with, or even instead of, the chickpeas:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...erfect-falafel

I do like falafel, so maybe broad beans aren't that bad after all. Now to source some decent liver from somewhere...

GenYus234 19 February 2014 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lainie (Post 1801599)
:confused: How does one "overdo" seeing symbolism in things?

ETA: If g-you see it, you see it.

The same way most things are overdone, you do it beyond the opinion of the one saying it is overdone.

A Turtle Named Mack 19 February 2014 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lainie (Post 1801599)
:confused: How does one "overdo" seeing symbolism in things?

ETA: If g-you see it, you see it.

I have often heard or read people talking about symbolism in different things where there is no sense to the symbolism claimed, and it seems to be just that person's imposition of their own attitudes on a work, utterly unsupported by the work, and with no explanation for how the presence of X actually means Y. Back to the Charlie Brown Christmas as an example, trying to adduce symbolism to each of the various dance moves of the Peanuts gang beyond the fact that they were all dancing would be to impose meaning that the artists did not put into the work. You can reflect on that as showing them living in the moment as a good thing, or as ignoring the Christmas pageant they are supposed to be preparing as a bad thing, or some variation on that. But the dancing is just dancing; it is what they are doing. It reflects their mental state. If you want to call it symbolic of their mental state, I am okay with that, but if you were to try to claim particular meanings beyond that to the dance moves, you had better at least be able to explain a substantial basis for your claims, either in traditional symbolism or how the symbolism works in the context of the show. Some things are just setting or description. In A Horse With No Name, both the horse and 'the river that flowed' are symbolic - they mean something beyond just a horse and a dry riverbed. But the 'plants and hills and rocks and things' are just setting the scene of being in a desert; they do not symbolize being in a desert, they ARE the desert. To put it simply, 'sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.'

Chloe 19 February 2014 04:25 PM

But symbols are not things artists or writers "put into their work." They exist in the cultural community of the readers, which may or may not be shared by the writer, and which will differ depending on who is responding to the text at what time. It doesn't matter what Fitzgerald "meant" the green light to symbolize at the end of The Great Gatsby, except to the extent that it has meaning to characters within the book. If to those who read it, it means something else as well that Fitzgerald didn't consciously think of, that doesn't mean those readers are "overdoing" the symbolism. It just means it means something else to them.

Lainie 19 February 2014 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack (Post 1803194)
If you want to call it symbolic of their mental state, I am okay with that, but if you were to try to claim particular meanings beyond that to the dance moves, you had better at least be able to explain a substantial basis for your claims. .

Why? If that's what it means to me, that's what it means to me. If it means nothing, or something different, to you, that just means we disagree. Symbolism isn't a question of objective fact, so the idea of having as "basis for [my] claims" is irrelevant.

ETA: If I were specifically claiming that the author intended for X to symbolize Y, then I could understand your asking for evidence. But if I say that X symbolizes Y, I'm talking about what X means to me.

snopes 19 February 2014 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack (Post 1803194)
Some things are just setting or description. In A Horse With No Name, both the horse and 'the river that flowed' are symbolic - they mean something beyond just a horse and a dry riverbed. But the 'plants and hills and rocks and things' are just setting the scene of being in a desert; they do not symbolize being in a desert, they ARE the desert.

How do you know that? Did the Symbolism Ministry issue an authoritative ruling on "A Horse with No Name"?

UEL 19 February 2014 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lainie (Post 1801599)
:confused: How does one "overdo" seeing symbolism in things?

ETA: If g-you see it, you see it.

When people start acting on seeing symbols and it impacts the lives of others. That is an "overdo".

Small example, after September 11, 2001, there was a group of people online who called for the change of the emergency number 911 because of its symbol being the same as the date (as Americans do it) 9-11.

Another example, seeing an image of the devil in the wood in a hospital door and fearing to take your child to that hospital because of the symbol of evil.

I know of someone who sees the fingerprint of the illuminati everywhere, and I mean everywhere. The conspiracies built around some of these symbols is enough to cause anguish in his friends and family.

I'm just bringing up some examples, not discounting anyone's opinion.

Chloe 19 February 2014 04:56 PM

All of those problems are people drawing conclusions from symbols they have identified and acting irrationally because of them, though. They don't speak to whether or not the symbols actually exist. Personally, I don't think the cross-shape in the wreckage of the WTC was "meant" by anyone, but that doesn't mean the people who saw it as symbolic of divine hope were overdoing things. Symbols aren't necessarily rational or logical.

JoeBentley 19 February 2014 05:00 PM

You are free to see symbolism in anything you want.

Claiming the symbolism was intended or seeing the symbolism as anything more then just that is another thing.

Chloe 19 February 2014 05:03 PM

I don't see the point of claiming symbolism was intended. How would you ever know? Even if you actually get to ask the author or artist, how could you trust the response? And why does t matter whether it was intended or not? I suspect Bradbury didn't intend the phallic imagery all over the first chapter of F451. So what?

I don't know where you're going with "anything more than that."

Lainie 19 February 2014 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UEL (Post 1803210)
When people start acting on seeing symbols and it impacts the lives of others. That is an "overdo".

I specifically asked about seeing symbolism, not acting on it.

UEL 19 February 2014 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lainie (Post 1803223)
I specifically asked about seeing symbolism, not acting on it.

Your point is? I pointed out how it can be overdone. It is called contribution to a thread.

Oftentimes, seeing and acting are not mutually exclusive. Seeing is an internal function. Acting is the external function. Acting upon anything is most certainly derived from seeing, so I cannot understand how seeing is separated from acting.

Lainie 19 February 2014 06:04 PM

I wasn't trying to be snotty. Of course I can see how acting on symbolism might be overdone, but seeing is not acting. If I see symbolism, I see it. It's a partly intellectual, partly emotional reaction, and it affects no one but me.

Elkhound 19 February 2014 06:05 PM

I'd consider claims that the gifts in "The Twelve Days of Christmas" refer to parts of the Catechism, as in:

My True Love is God the Father, the Partridge is Jesus and the Pear Tree the Cross, the Two Turtledoves are the OT & NT of the Bible, the Three French Hens are the Trinity, etc.

to be 'overdoing symbolism.'

Lainie 19 February 2014 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UEL (Post 1803230)
Acting upon anything is most certainly derived from seeing, so I cannot understand how seeing is separated from acting.

Because you can see symbolism without acting on it. I do it all the time. In fact I rarely act on symbolism I see.

Cervus 17 April 2014 01:50 AM

Getting back to the OP, a thing I recently figured out:

The Boyz II men song "Motownphilly" refers to Philadelphia. It is not "Motown Filly" as I've thought for the last 23 years. When I heard the song on the radio as a kid, I presumed "filly" was slang term for a girl, because young female horses are called fillies. Recently I heard someone make reference to the song and it hit me: They're talking about a Motown sound in the Philadelphia music scene.

ganzfeld 17 April 2014 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloe (Post 1803219)
I don't see the point of claiming symbolism was intended. How would you ever know?

Telepathy, of course. (Or, failing that, fMRI.)

Cervus 28 April 2014 02:25 AM

While watching MST3K tonight, I realized Crow T. Robot's mouth is made from a bowling pin. It seems so obvious now I don't know why I never noticed it before.

WildaBeast 01 May 2014 10:38 PM

I just learned from another thread that "moot court" is an actual thing. Now I actually get the name of that forum here.

lavender blue 01 May 2014 11:35 PM

I've been watching a 3-part documentary on PBS called "Your Inner Fish", which was adapted from a book of the same name. I was thinking of buying the book, when I walked by my work bookcase (which I walk by several times a day) and happened to notice the book was already in my possession.

Now I just have to figure out how I got the book, because I could have sworn I hadn't bought it...

Latiam 02 May 2014 03:49 AM

The first Gryffindor password in Harry Potter, Caput Draconis, means the head of the dragon.

mags 02 May 2014 03:48 PM

Starkist and Sunkist are not indeed the same name. I always thought it was weird that the tuna and orange soda were marketed under the same name.

Alarm 02 May 2014 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mags (Post 1819546)
Starkist and Sunkist are not indeed the same name. I always thought it was weird that the tuna and orange soda were marketed under the same name.

There is also, apparently Moonkist stuff, to complete the trifecta. So you can eat your tuna, while sipping your orange drink, whilst wearing snazzy jewelry.

Gutter Monkey 02 May 2014 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lavender blue (Post 1819469)
I've been watching a 3-part documentary on PBS called "Your Inner Fish", which was adapted from a book of the same name. I was thinking of buying the book, when I walked by my work bookcase (which I walk by several times a day) and happened to notice the book was already in my possession.

Now I just have to figure out how I got the book, because I could have sworn I hadn't bought it...

There was a discussion on the Marvel comicbook character Man-Thing recently and I had to look it up because I knew next to nothing about it. Tonight I decided to finally sort out my comicbook collection and I discovered that I owned most of the first and second Man-Thing series, roughly 20 comics.

musicgeek 02 May 2014 05:56 PM

But do you have a Giant-Sized Man-Thing? :D

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...ng_Vol_1_3.jpg

(Obligatory comment copied from a BleedingCool comics forum: )

Quote:

I still remember when I first discovered my Giant Sized Man-Thing, I was just thirteen. I'd take it out whenever I could, my teacher once sent me to the principal's office for showing off my Giant Sized Man-Thing during class.

My girlfriend told me I should keep my Giant Sized Man-Thing in plastic for protection and I do till this day. I remember the look on my wife's face the first time she saw my Giant-Sized Man Thing, she couldn't believe I had it since I was 13. Of course she is careless and never wanted my Giant Sized Man-Thing in plastic.

I'll try an post a pic later.

Gutter Monkey 02 May 2014 05:58 PM

I only have the regular Man-Thing. :(

Alarm 02 May 2014 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gutter Monkey (Post 1819578)
I only have the regular Man-Thing. :(

But is it sheathed in plastic?

:lol::lol::lol:

WildaBeast 19 May 2014 01:25 AM

Former Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi is not related to Mahatma Gandhi. I'd always just assumed at least part of the reason for her popularity was the name recognition, I guess you'd call it.

erwins 19 May 2014 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildaBeast (Post 1822162)
Former Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi is not related to Mahatma Gandhi. I'd always just assumed at least part of the reason for her popularity was the name recognition, I guess you'd call it.

But she was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India. Gandhi was her married name. So there was certainly some family recognition in play.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.