Re: Physical nomenclature
Patrick Riley (email@example.com)
Fri, 09 Aug 1996 20:47:49 GMT
firstname.lastname@example.org (David Schmitz) wrote:
>In <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org(Patrick Riley) writes:
>>On Aug 01, 1996 18:16:02 in article <Re: Physical nomenclature>,
>>>In article <email@example.com>,
>>>firstname.lastname@example.org(Patrick Riley) wrote:
(simple request for a text on physical nomenclature mentioning
>>>All human classification systems are wrought with political overtones, you
>>>are just trying to find one that doesn't offend you. Anthropologists have
>>>dropped physical typing since the late sixties, and you should ask
>>>yourself why the need to do it now.
>>>MA Anthropology University Of Western Ontario
(reply by Riley indicating his request was simply that--a request for
>I say, not a bad troll at all. But the idea was to get the others to
>lecture you while you sat back from your monitor with a smug look on your
>face, eyes dancing in merriment from all the trouble you caused. But noooo,
>you had to go and turn it around and jump upon your soapbox a couple of
>speakers too soon.
>Tsk. Someday they'll learn how to do it right,
>Please allow me to introduce myself:
>I'm a man of wealth and taste.
Bang, bang--the sound of a 2*4 hiting the donkey's head. This was not
a troll!!! Do you see some secondary agenda in everything? I am not
trying to cause trouble although given the pompous nature of the posts
in this group, I'm sorely tempted. The question I asked was if one of
you academics could give me a reference to a text that sets out a
standardized temininology to describe a human being without actually
being able to touch the person being described. If that's too
difficult to understand let me try an example. You've just seen the
movie Some Like It Hot. Describe Marilyn Monroe to someone who has
never seen her using a terminology that is commonly accepted and can
be used to describe other persons and have the same meanings.
As a little background information I asked a similar question on the
commercial Hairnet: Could someone please provide the name of a text to
describe all current hairstyles and terminologies? I received a
sensible reply that there is none followed by a discussion of why and
how great it would be if such a thing existed. If the hairdressers can
do it is there some reason to expect a lesser performance from the
anthropologists in their specialty area?