View previous topic | View next topic

Fraud/Fakes/Falsehoods/Fakirs

Page 5 of 7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Flash
308169.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:29 am Reply with quote

Putting "not an apocryphal tale" after a statement sounds a bit like a long-winded way of saying "apparently" to me.

 
MatC
308179.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:38 am Reply with quote

This is from Hansard, in 1998:

Quote:
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has said, that would have had significant advantages for all people on lower incomes, particularly those who might properly be considered to move within what has often been characterised as the unemployment or benefits trap. Now they discover that this is a measure for the future. It is to be jam tomorrow, or, more properly, as any examination of the Red Book will reveal, beyond tomorrow--not so much jam tomorrow as the people's strawberry jam having been adulterated with wooden pips by the Chancellor himself.


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980513/debtext/80513-38.htm

 
MatC
308184.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:43 am Reply with quote

And this is the Irish equivalent, from 1924:

Quote:
Mr. HEFFERNAN: On a point of information, Deputy D'Alton and others might be interested to know that there is a very important industry in England engaged in the manufacture of strawberry pips out of wood to mix with the turnips for strawberry jam.


Quote:
Mr. HEWAT: We are on the subject of jams, and I think that in the discussion that has taken place we seem to be inclined to give a very unenviable advertisement to Irish jam. We have heard, in the course of the discussion, that Irish jam contains no fruit, but rather that it contains Swedish turnips, wooden pips, and things of that kind. Possibly if the debate goes on long enough we will learn that Irish jam has no sugar.


IrishUrl

 
MatC
308188.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:46 am Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
Putting "not an apocryphal tale" after a statement sounds a bit like a long-winded way of saying "apparently" to me.


It means that everyone he has told about during the past 47 years has said ďDonít be daft, thatís just a story,Ē and that he knows it isn't, because it was told to him by his granddad who was once in service to the Duke of Sausageís cousin. And that he can prove itís not apocryphal; look - it says ďnot apocryphal,Ē what more proof could you want!

 
MatC
308207.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:58 am Reply with quote

Ah-ha - hereís some reassuring confirmation of the Sylvia Pankhurst story, at least:

miniurl

(Itís from a google book thing, I donít think you can copy and paste from them, can you?)

 
suze
308210.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:01 am Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
Jenny, if you're out there: can you just elucidate the use of the word "jelly" in the US (just a one-liner for the note - Stephen will probably know this anyway).


I can elucidate Canadian pre-1998 usage, then we can see if Maine 2008 usage is much the same.

The stuff which is called "jam" in the UK is usually called "jelly" in North America, although the word "jam" is perfectly well understood. The stuff called "jelly" in Britain is generically known as "Jell-O", which is one of those tradenames which has come to be used for all products of the kind.

 
Flash
308212.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:04 am Reply with quote

Thanks, I thought as much.

 
96aelw
308242.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:21 am Reply with quote

What do North Americans call that which is called jelly in this country, but which isn't the same stuff as Jell-O (i.e. the sort of jam that's made only from fruit juice, with no pulp, like, as it might be, redcurrant jelly)? Is this differentiated from ordinary jam/jelly?

 
suze
308244.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:21 am Reply with quote

MatC wrote:
(Itís from a google book thing, I donít think you can copy and paste from them, can you?)


No, although you can do this:



(Which was purely proof of concept; one click isn't really too hard!)

 
suze
308251.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:26 am Reply with quote

96aelw wrote:
What do North Americans call that which is called jelly in this country, but which isn't the same stuff as Jell-O (i.e. the sort of jam that's made only from fruit juice, with no pulp, like, as it might be, redcurrant jelly)? Is this differentiated from ordinary jam/jelly?


By and large, no - that too is called "jelly".

Those who do use the word "jam" (as, for instance, do many people on Vancouver Island, which is practically Tunbridge-Wells-on-the-Pacific) would make the same distinction here as do British people.

 
MatC
308263.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:43 am Reply with quote

How do you do that, suze?

 
Jenny
308296.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:53 am Reply with quote

Suze is right - jam whether made from fruit or juice is called 'jelly' here, and British jelly is Jell-o.

At the Old Country Buffet at the Maine Mall they mix chunks of jell-o with marshmallows and cool-whip, call it salad and people put it on the same plate as green leafy salad. Fruit salad is also not a dessert here but served as a salad like lettuce and cucumber. Honestly.

 
suze
308320.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:31 am Reply with quote

Mat, it wasn't at all difficult - if somewhat pointless in that particular instance. All I did was to do Print Screen from the Google Books page, paste into an image editor, crop out everything except the few lines shown there, and save as a JPG.

Hmmm, maybe there's a reason why I was accused of being anal in the outer forums the other day ...

 
MatC
308330.  Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:53 am Reply with quote

Ah, so it did involve splitting the atom, as I suspected!

 
eggshaped
310385.  Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:04 am Reply with quote

In February 1708, a pamphlet went on sale called Predictions for the Year 1708 by Isaac Bickerstaff. One of the predictions in the almanac was that famous astrologer John Partridge would die of ďa raging fever" at 11 p.m. on March 29 of that year.

Partridge was a little miffed and replied:

Quote:
"His whole Design was nothing but Deceit

The End of March will plainly show the Cheat,"


On March 29th, Bickerstaff issued an elegy for Partridge, claiming that he had gone to see the dead man on his death bed. Furthermore, he claimed that Partridgeís dying words were that he was a fraud.

The following day, on April 1st, the news had travelled that Bickerstaff was right; but of course it was all a joke and Partridge was still alive, kicking, and pretty peeved when he was woken by a church warder asking if there were any orders for his funeral sermon. People in the street began to stop him, telling him that he looked exactly like one of their dead friends.

Partridge continued to publish his astrological almanac and issued a leaflet assuring people that he was still alive, at which point Bickerstaff said he was obviously dead, as no living astrologer could have written the rubbish that was in his latest pamphlet.

Bickerstaff was actually Jonathon Swift, who wanted to discredit the fraudulent astrologer, and Partridge never managed to shake off the fact that many thought he was dead. He soon realised he had lost any credibility and stopped publishing his almanac.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/bickerstaff.html
(other online sources used, but this sums it up nicely)

 

Page 5 of 7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group