Seriously?

In reply to carguy123:

You are putting me on the wrong side of the fence here.

The_Jed wrote: How about the rumored origins of the phrase "rule of thumb"?

Which are completely false. It has always meant what everyone uses it to mean: rough estimation.

Comes from builders/workers using their thumbs as a rough guide to measure things. Unclear whether it is people actually using their thumbs as rulers, or using them to sight over.

In Germany the gesture for "so/so" or "approximately", equivalent to what we do with a hand out flat and shaking side to side, they do as a thumbs up wiggled side to side.

Beer Baron wrote:

The_Jed wrote: How about the rumored origins of the phrase "rule of thumb"?

Which are completely false. It has always meant what everyone uses it to mean: rough estimation. Comes from builders/workers using their thumbs as a rough guide to measure things. Unclear whether it is people actually using their thumbs as rulers, or using them to sight over. In Germany the gesture for "so/so" or "approximately", equivalent to what we do with a hand out flat and shaking side to side, they do as a thumbs up wiggled side to side.

That's why I stuck "rumored" in there. There is some documentation I found online (must be true!) referring to an old judge's interpretation of an old Welsh law or some such.

I stand by my HTFU statement.

carguy123 wrote:

Anti-stance wrote: Damn, I was going to say "in before the questioning of Fox News credibility" but I got here a little late.

So Fox, who just reported what happened, is somehow to blame for the incident?

I don't see a post complaining about the source.

Or, did some whiner post one and decided to delete it because he's a Bob Costas, Seattleite wannabe?

We'll add things like this to the long list of reasons I'm hesitant to move to Seattle, despite hating my situation here
(a whopping 90 miles north)

Re: CG123 running to defend Fox, looks like someone took the bait.
Yay forum antics!

yamaha wrote: Wait, racist against themselves cannot be racist?

Not true at all.

Racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

There is no reason someone can't be a member of a race they themselves consider to be inferior. Happens very frequently.

I don't have any idea about the brown bag thing, but the citizen one makes sense. If in some piece of official communication, you are referring to residents, you shouldn't say citizens because they are not the same thing. The words are not interchangeable, they have different meanings. You should use the one that correctly applies. I mean, it doesn't help that the word citizen has become somewhat racially/politically charged by those who use it to imply that citizens are superior to non-citizens, but I don't think that's the real reason to make the clarification.

Be well citizen!

Can you still say niggardly?

In reply to Josh:

Citizens ARE superior to non-citizens. All non-citizens know it (that's why they would like to be citizens).

They may be equally human, but one has rights of citizenship, the other can face deportation if they violate the terms of their visa. They are not legally equal (though they are equal in their humanity).

Official government documentation should use the proper terminology. Banning one word (which is more accurate in some instances) is really stupid.

SVreX wrote:

yamaha wrote: Wait, racist against themselves cannot be racist?

Not true at all. Racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. There is no reason someone can't be a member of a race they themselves consider to be inferior. Happens very frequently.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Josh: Official government documentation should use the proper terminology. Banning one word (which is more accurate in some instances) is really stupid.

You're missing the point. This is a CITY government policy. There are no "citizens" of Seattle because it is not, so far as I am aware, a sovereign entity. If official communication is being made in regard to residents of the city, it is inaccurate and unnecessarily confusing to refer to them as "citizens". That's all I'm saying.

In reply to Josh:

Yep. You are correct.

DoctorBlade wrote: Brown Bag an insult to "people of color"? What planet do those idiots live on?

A small one, located deep in Uranus.

I had an old black lady tell me that my company used to hang a brown bag outside the hr department for salary. If you were lighter than it, then you could apply for a job. Darker than it, an you could be an hourly worker.

I've also found employee yearbook's from the 40's and 50's. while it may seem silly today, basically everyone was white in the salary ranks and web more shockingly they use to put on black face minstrel shows for each other.

It sure was a different time.

So I am a brown bagging, white citizen, brown bagger since I am white, work for hourly pay, and bring my lunch to work everyday.

Wow.

That really is stupid.

anti-stance just described what used to be me ....

until this thread I would never EVER have considered the term "brown bagger" as anything other than someone that brought their lunch to work with them ... I started being a brown bagger in the first grade ... I really don't get it ... sigh