Farin Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 oh, and this video was even posted there! alright then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcM Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 Ohhh ... sexy ! Just don't get any on your old SF T Shirt ! Sorry to get you all hot and bothered, Kevin, but you will have to get that image of me out of your head! I am spoken for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skybluesky Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 Can any one can tell me how the term sucker came to describe a person easily fooled and if the term came from the candy or the other way around? I looked for the answer in my normal word place and Wikipedia and got zero help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcM Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 From takeourword.com..... From Patrick Salsbury: What is the origin of the term sucker? This word, which has several meanings today, was formed as a noun from the verb suck. Suck comes ultimately from the Indo-European root sug-/suk-. The Old English version was sucan, and there was a Latin parallel sugere. Sucker was souker in around 1384 with the meaning "young mammal before it is weaned". By 1577 another meaning, "shoot growing from a plant", had arisen, and in the late 17th century we find the additional meaning "organ for holding fast". It is not until 1836 that sucker is first recorded in reference to "a person easily deceived", and in 1907 it was used to describe a "lollipop". Finally, the verb form sucker arose in about 1948 to mean "hoodwink" (a word with an interesting etymology in its own right; we'll examine it some time). All of the above meanings derive directly from the Indo-European root's meaning except for "person easily deceived". This one likely arose indirectly, by likening a naive person to a newborn mammal, which is blind and defenseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skybluesky Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 Thanks Marc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 I'm in a bit of a philosophical mood today: I've just been watching this video Das absolute Glück ~ PeterLicht with lyrics like: the absolute fortune(happiness, bliss) as the very last human to stand at the ramp (...) the absolute fortune to walk through the cities which are empty and open the absolute fortune... and the chorus: and where you are, there can be nobody else and if I'd know where that is then I would know where nobody else is then I would know where that is... what do you think about that? would you like to live a life away from everyone, or are you a people's person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viaene Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 I would miss human interaction but I wouldn't mind to leave everything behind, for example: I'm considering to study one year abroad, somewhere in scandinavia seems attractive.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 I'm not a people person at all, but I wouldn't want to live in a place without people. I'd prefer a big city to a small town because in a city you can maintain a sense of anonymity, while in a small town, everyone knows everyone, and that unnerves me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 I love the cameraderie of a small town atmosphere. I'd love to be able to just walk down the street to the store and greet everyone I see by name and have them do the same. I hate living where people walk with their heads down for fear of making eye contact and having to interact somehow. But back to Farin's question: I love my alone time, and I don't do well at parties or in crowds, but I have to have friends. Have to. They keep me sane. So does that make me a people person or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lea Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Is there a way I can get my nick changed just slightly? I wanna chage to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 I love to live in the city, just like Radhi. I love to meet people I know on the streets too... We also had a house in a small village (500 people) and there, we knew everybody. It´s like Shawna says... it´s very cool, but I´m so used to be among millions of people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 I wouldn't want to be away from people completely. We had a discussion like this in college. My point then and now was/is that what you see as 'away from everyone' isn't really away from everyone. Would you honestly be happier without the internet or music or radio or television? They're all forms of social interaction. To be physically away from people and then to say that you're living like a hermit when you're equipped with broadband, cellphone (I don't know how you've got a signal for either, but you have), ipod, whatever, is kind of a lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 But Radhi, that would be a cyberlife. You are actually a hermit if you don´t see people, touch them, work with them, are with them... not just on a screen but in three dimensions. You can live in a cave with internet, TV, phones, web cams, etc., but for me, a social interaction implies physical contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 You're not really with people - it's one of the greatest misconceptions people on-line have. Your real life will be that of a hermit. On-line, you have an artificial existence, but once the computer is shut off, it's game over and you're back to real life, real existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Well, no... it is social interaction, even if it's just one way. Because you are "with" people. They're singing to you from your earphones or talking to you from a television and if you're online, you're talking to them back. Excluding the online example, with the ipod or the TV, the interaction is just one-way. But it's still there. Y'know what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 What if the power goes? Blackout. You can lit candles but you won´t have no one to talk to. It´s not real life for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 ipods have battery And yes, exactly... it's not real life for you. You can't really exist much without some form of human interaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 No. No amount of on-line chatting is going to replace being with me mates laughing it up at a comedy club or at a karaoke bash. No amount of "cybersex" (which has nothing to do with sex) will ever replace the real thing. I'm not even that social, but I place a lot of importance in getting to know people in real life (i.e., vis-a-vis) over prolonged periods of time. The Internet, the television, the radio, these are all diversions until I get to go out and talk to my family and friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Well not 'replace', but certainly make it more tolerable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Everyday is a big event. The times when I am at my saddest/lowest/loneliest are the ones when I cannot spend time with my loved ones. One of my chief complaints is that I can't be spontaneous with other people because they lead such busy lives. I'm actually counting the days when I get to take a friend of mine to see Wicked at The Pantages in Hollywood. I bought new clothes, new shoes, new cologne; I'm planning an itinerary for the day, etc... and this is gonna be a "regular" outing! We're just gonna hang out. Hahah. That's the thing. Everyday is a special occasion. Everyday I write the book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 I don't think I really need social interaction with people in person... I think I'd be fine if I just talked to them online, once in a while. Maybe not for five years in a row though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted March 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Have you considered prison , then ? It is an option for that type of lifestyle , I'm sure . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Do they let people go online? I'd want to move around a bit though, not sit in the same room all the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted March 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 I think they let you out in the yard for an hour or so - if you're not TOO anti-social . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 No thanks then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now