Can one use:
1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.
instead of:
2) I know an arrogant fool when I see one.

Is'1' meaningful?
Is it idiomatic?

Gratefully,
Navi

Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Obsessed with ambiguity
Interested in strange structures

navi wrote:

> Can one use:
> 1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.
> instead of:
> 2) I know an arrogant fool when I see one.

> Is'1' meaningful?
> Is it idiomatic?

Yes, yes.

That's the basis of a venerable pun. "You can always tell a
Yale man, but you can't tell him much." Or a Scotsman, Texan,
etc. If you're interested in the history, see

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/23/tell-much/

--
Jerry Friedman

i'd have to check but i think Dirty Harry uses 2 (not 1).
2 sounds more confident.

jerryfriedman wrote:
> navi wrote:

>> Can one use:
>> 1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.
>> instead of:
>> 2) I know an arrogant fool when I see one.

>> Is'1' meaningful?

>> Is it idiomatic? ------- What's the intended meaning of this question?

> Yes, yes.

> That's the basis of a venerable pun. "You can always tell a
> Yale man, but you can't tell him much." Or a Scotsman, Texan,
> etc. If you're interested in the history, see https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/23/tell-much/

hey... that's great... Thanks!



______________ bard.google.com says that there's a slight difference in nuance:

1. I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.

-------- This emphasizes your ability to identify arrogant fools.
It suggests you have a keen eye for spotting them.

2. I know an arrogant fool when I see one.

-------- This focuses more on the certainty of your recognition.
It implies you have experience encountering arrogant fools
and can confidently identify them.

_____________ Here are some additional factors to consider when choosing:


Context: If you're describing a specific situation where you identified an arrogant fool, option 1 might be more fitting.

Tone: Option 1 can sound slightly more boastful, while option 2 comes across as more confident and knowing.


Ultimately, both options work well. You can choose whichever best suits the situation and the tone you want to convey.

jerryfriedman wrote:

> That's the basis of a venerable pun. "You can always tell a
> Yale man, but you can't tell him much." Or a Scotsman, Texan,
> etc. If you're interested in the history, see
>
> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/23/tell-much/

In a Groucho Marx episode of a 'quiz' program the victim says that "I
can always tell a phony". The key word turned out to be "telephone", so
the victim then tries to pretend that that is what he said.

"Victim" is a description of anyone trying to interact with Groucho.

--
Bertel, Denmark

Le 01/04/2024 à 01:51, jerryfriedman a écrit :
> navi wrote:
>>
>> Can one use:
>> 1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.
>> instead of:
>> 2) I know an arrogant fool when I see one.
>
>> Is'1' meaningful?
>> Is it idiomatic?
>
> Yes, yes.
>
> That's the basis of a venerable pun.  "You can always tell a
> Yale man, but you can't tell him much."  Or a Scotsman, Texan,
> etc.  If you're interested in the history, see
>
> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/23/tell-much/
>

Telling a Scotsman reminds me of something I heard recently - I can't
remember where - which ran something like:

If you see a man wearing a kilt in London, you know he's a Scotsman.
If you see a man wearing a kilt in Edinburgh, you know he's a
Highlander.
If you see a man wearing a kilt in the Highlands, you know he's an
American.

On 2024-04-01 07:28:48 +0000, Hibou said:

> Le 01/04/2024 à 01:51, jerryfriedman a écrit :
>> navi wrote:
>>>
>>> Can one use:
>>> 1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>> instead of:
>>> 2) I know an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>
>>> Is'1' meaningful?
>>> Is it idiomatic?
>>
>> Yes, yes.
>>
>> That's the basis of a venerable pun.  "You can always tell a
>> Yale man, but you can't tell him much."  Or a Scotsman, Texan,
>> etc.  If you're interested in the history, see
>>
>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/23/tell-much/
>>
>
> Telling a Scotsman reminds me of something I heard recently - I can't
> remember where

You might have read t here, when I posted almost exactly the same
example ("almost" because I had "think" for the first two "know"s)

> - which ran something like:
>
> If you see a man wearing a kilt in London, you know he's a Scotsman.
> If you see a man wearing a kilt in Edinburgh, you know he's a Highlander.
> If you see a man wearing a kilt in the Highlands, you know he's an
> American.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Le 01/04/2024 à 09:31, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2024-04-01 07:28:48 +0000, Hibou said:
>>
>> Telling a Scotsman reminds me of something I heard recently - I can't
>> remember where
>
> You might have read t here, when I posted almost exactly the same
> example ("almost" because I had "think" for the first two "know"s)

I expect that's it. I'd searched Narkive, but couldn't find it.

>
>>  - which ran something like:
>>
>>      If you see a man wearing a kilt in London, you know he's a Scotsman.
>>      If you see a man wearing a kilt in Edinburgh, you know he's a
>> Highlander.
>>      If you see a man wearing a kilt in the Highlands, you know he's
>> an American.

In article <uudnni$2c0cc$1@dont-email.me>,
Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Le 01/04/2024 à 01:51, jerryfriedman a écrit :
> > navi wrote:
> >>
> >> Can one use:
> >> 1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.
> >> instead of:
> >> 2) I know an arrogant fool when I see one.
> >
> >> Is'1' meaningful?
> >> Is it idiomatic?
> >
> > Yes, yes.
> >
> > That's the basis of a venerable pun. "You can always tell a
> > Yale man, but you can't tell him much." Or a Scotsman, Texan,
> > etc. If you're interested in the history, see
> >
> > https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/23/tell-much/
> >

> Telling a Scotsman reminds me of something I heard recently - I can't
> remember where - which ran something like:

> If you see a man wearing a kilt in London, you know he's a Scotsman.
> If you see a man wearing a kilt in Edinburgh, you know he's a
> Highlander.

Unless he's wearing it with a different tartan plaid - then he's American.

> If you see a man wearing a kilt in the Highlands, you know he's an
> American.

mind you my father who was Sheriff of Orkney and he wore a kilt every day.
Mind you, Orkney doesn't count as 'highlands'.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 01 Apr 2024, Hibou wrote

> Le 01/04/2024 à 01:51, jerryfriedman a écrit :
>> navi wrote:
>>>
>>> Can one use:
>>> 1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>> instead of:
>>> 2) I know an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>
>>> Is'1' meaningful?
>>> Is it idiomatic?
>>
>> Yes, yes.
>>
>> That's the basis of a venerable pun.  "You can always tell a
>> Yale man, but you can't tell him much."  Or a Scotsman, Texan,
>> etc.  If you're interested in the history, see
>>
>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/23/tell-much/
>>
>
> Telling a Scotsman reminds me of something I heard recently - I
> can't remember where - which ran something like:
>
> If you see a man wearing a kilt in London, you know he's a
> Scotsman. If you see a man wearing a kilt in Edinburgh, you
> know he's a Highlander.
> If you see a man wearing a kilt in the Highlands, you know
> he's an American.

Thinking of things Scottish, there's the Wodehouse comment:

"It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a
grievance and a ray of sunshine"

--
Cheers, Harvey

On 2024-04-01 10:05:20 +0000, HVS said:

> On 01 Apr 2024, Hibou wrote
>
>> Le 01/04/2024 à 01:51, jerryfriedman a écrit :
>>> navi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can one use:
>>>> 1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>>> instead of:
>>>> 2) I know an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>>
>>>> Is'1' meaningful?
>>>> Is it idiomatic?
>>>
>>> Yes, yes.
>>>
>>> That's the basis of a venerable pun.  "You can always tell a
>>> Yale man, but you can't tell him much."  Or a Scotsman, Texan,
>>> etc.  If you're interested in the history, see
>>>
>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/23/tell-much/
>>>
>>
>> Telling a Scotsman reminds me of something I heard recently - I
>> can't remember where - which ran something like:
>>
>> If you see a man wearing a kilt in London, you know he's a
>> Scotsman. If you see a man wearing a kilt in Edinburgh, you
>> know he's a Highlander.
>> If you see a man wearing a kilt in the Highlands, you know
>> he's an American.
>
> Thinking of things Scottish, there's the Wodehouse comment:
>
> "It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a
> grievance and a ray of sunshine"

I see that now the Government of Scotland is planning a law to define
hate crime as saying something the trans lobby doesn't like, like "men
are not women". To be a hate crime the criminal doesn't have to be in
Scotland: anywhere in the world will do. If you write something that
can be read in Scotland (like this post, for example), they can have
you arrested. I don't feel too worried about that, because I think that
the French police would tell them to piss off if they tried it. It's
more of a worry for Janet.

Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2024-04-01 10:05:20 +0000, HVS said:

>> On 01 Apr 2024, Hibou wrote
>>
>>> Le 01/04/2024 à 01:51, jerryfriedman a écrit :
>>>> navi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Can one use:
>>>>> 1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>>>> instead of:
>>>>> 2) I know an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>>>
>>>>> Is'1' meaningful?
>>>>> Is it idiomatic?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, yes.
>>>>
>>>> That's the basis of a venerable pun.  "You can always tell a
>>>> Yale man, but you can't tell him much."  Or a Scotsman, Texan,
>>>> etc.  If you're interested in the history, see
>>>>
>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/23/tell-much/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Telling a Scotsman reminds me of something I heard recently - I
>>> can't remember where - which ran something like:
>>>
>>> If you see a man wearing a kilt in London, you know he's a
>>> Scotsman. If you see a man wearing a kilt in Edinburgh, you
>>> know he's a Highlander.
>>> If you see a man wearing a kilt in the Highlands, you know
>>> he's an American.
>>
>> Thinking of things Scottish, there's the Wodehouse comment:
>>
>> "It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a
>> grievance and a ray of sunshine"

> I see that now the Government of Scotland is planning a law to define
> hate crime as saying something the trans lobby doesn't like, like "men
> are not women". To be a hate crime the criminal doesn't have to be in
> Scotland: anywhere in the world will do. If you write something that
> can be read in Scotland (like this post, for example), they can have
> you arrested. I don't feel too worried about that, because I think that
> the French police would tell them to piss off if they tried it.

Don't be so sure, Gertrude Stein flourished there ...

> It's
> more of a worry for Janet.

Look at Canada:

U of Waterloo Now

https://twitter.com/realChrisBrunet/status/1773574282834010605

Best.
--
Marius Hancu

On 01/04/24 21:20, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> I see that now the Government of Scotland is planning a law to
> define hate crime as saying something the trans lobby doesn't like,
> like "men are not women". To be a hate crime the criminal doesn't
> have to be in Scotland: anywhere in the world will do. If you write
> something that can be read in Scotland (like this post, for example),
> they can have you arrested. I don't feel too worried about that,
> because I think that the French police would tell them to piss off if
> they tried it. It's more of a worry for Janet.

I get nervous about laws that are supposed to apply beyond the borders
of the country where the laws are made. The Australian government has
made a law that lets it prosecute someone who has under-age sex in
Thailand. Now, I don't have much sympathy for child molesters. Still, a
law like that sets a bad precedent.

The US government still wants to try Julian Assange for treason.
(Although he'll probably die first, via the UK approach to slow
torture.) Is it possible for a non-resident non-citizen to commit
treason against a country he has no wish to enter? If he's found guilty[1],
some dictionaries will need to be revised.

[1] That is, if a court confirms the verdict that has already been reached.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Peter Moylan wrote:

> I get nervous about laws that are supposed to apply beyond the borders
> of the country where the laws are made. The Australian government has
> made a law that lets it prosecute someone who has under-age sex in
> Thailand.

The Danish law forbids under-age sex in any country (based on the Danish
limit which is 15 years), but it applies only for Danish citizens. It
makes no difference if it is not under-age sex according to the local
law.

--
Bertel, Denmark

In article <l6vg3cF9isjU1@mid.individual.net>,
me@yahoo.com says...

> I see that now the Government of Scotland is planning a law to define
> hate crime as saying something the trans lobby doesn't like, like "men
> are not women". To be a hate crime the criminal doesn't have to be in
> Scotland: anywhere in the world will do.

Not quite.
To face charges/police investigation in Scotland, the
hater needs to be in Scotland.
The "victim" or hatee can be anywhere in the world.

If you write something that
> can be read in Scotland (like this post, for example), they can have
> you arrested. I don't feel too worried about that,
because I think that
> the French police would tell them to piss off if they tried it. It's
> more of a worry for Janet.

Indeed I am trembling. I am totally helpless, an
unprotected potential victim, because "woman" has not been
included in the Hate Bill as a protected characteristic.
The Scottish Govt is currently debating an Assisted
Dying Bill. Some might consider that the Hate Bill is
yet another SNP attempt at political suicide.

Janet

Le 01/04/2024 à 11:20, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2024-04-01 10:05:20 +0000, HVS said:
>>
>> Thinking of things Scottish, there's the Wodehouse comment:
>>
>> "It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a
>> grievance and a ray of sunshine"
>
> I see that now the Government of Scotland is planning a law to define
> hate crime as saying something the trans lobby doesn't like, like "men
> are not women". To be a hate crime the criminal doesn't have to be in
> Scotland: anywhere in the world will do. If you write something that can
> be read in Scotland (like this post, for example), they can have you
> arrested. I don't feel too worried about that, because I think that the
> French police would tell them to piss off if they tried it. It's more of
> a worry for Janet.

I suppose hate crime is a particular kind of thought crime, investigated
by the thought police - in this case, the thocht polis.

"The Polis Service o Scotland [...] is e polis force responsible fur law
enforcement in Scotland" -
<https://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polis_Scotland>

A neighbour, now extinct, described those at Holyrood as having risen to
positions of obscurity - and indeed it seems to me that they are not
even good enough to make it to Westminster, low though the standard
there is.

Unfortunately, Holyrood is a single chamber, has no moderating House of
Lairds.

« Les sots sont ici-bas pour nos menus plaisirs » (Gresset). Yes, but
only when they don't wield power.

On 2024-04-01 04:44, Marius_Hancu wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-01 10:05:20 +0000, HVS said:
>
>>> On 01 Apr 2024, Hibou wrote
>>>
>>>> Le 01/04/2024 à 01:51, jerryfriedman a écrit :
>>>>> navi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can one use:
>>>>>> 1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>>>>> instead of:
>>>>>> 2) I know an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is'1' meaningful?
>>>>>> Is it idiomatic?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the basis of a venerable pun.  "You can always tell a
>>>>> Yale man, but you can't tell him much."  Or a Scotsman, Texan,
>>>>> etc.  If you're interested in the history, see
>>>>>
>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/23/tell-much/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Telling a Scotsman reminds me of something I heard recently - I
>>>> can't remember where - which ran something like:
>>>>
>>>> If you see a man wearing a kilt in London, you know he's a
>>>> Scotsman. If you see a man wearing a kilt in Edinburgh, you
>>>> know he's a Highlander.
>>>> If you see a man wearing a kilt in the Highlands, you know
>>>> he's an American.
>>>
>>> Thinking of things Scottish, there's the Wodehouse comment:
>>>
>>> "It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a
>>> grievance and a ray of sunshine"
>
>> I see that now the Government of Scotland is planning a law to define
>> hate crime as saying something the trans lobby doesn't like, like "men
>> are not women". To be a hate crime the criminal doesn't have to be in
>> Scotland: anywhere in the world will do. If you write something that
>> can be read in Scotland (like this post, for example), they can have
>> you arrested. I don't feel too worried about that, because I think
>> that the French police would tell them to piss off if they tried it.
>
> Don't be so sure, Gertrude Stein flourished there ...
>
>> It's more of a worry for Janet.
>
> Look at Canada:
>
> U of Waterloo Now
>
> https://twitter.com/realChrisBrunet/status/1773574282834010605

Don't you just love it when someone creates wording that doesn't
actually say what they meant.

"Position 1 is open ONLY to scholars who “self-identify as women,
transgender, gender-fluid, non-binary, or Two-spirit.”

I think most women self-identify as women.

--
“Happiness is having a large, loving, caring, close-knit family in
another city.”
—George Burns

lar3ryca wrote:

> On 2024-04-01 04:44, Marius_Hancu wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-04-01 10:05:20 +0000, HVS said:
>>
>>>> On 01 Apr 2024, Hibou wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Le 01/04/2024 à 01:51, jerryfriedman a écrit :
>>>>>> navi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can one use:
>>>>>>> 1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>>>>>> instead of:
>>>>>>> 2) I know an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is'1' meaningful?
>>>>>>> Is it idiomatic?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the basis of a venerable pun.  "You can always tell a
>>>>>> Yale man, but you can't tell him much."  Or a Scotsman, Texan,
>>>>>> etc.  If you're interested in the history, see
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/23/tell-much/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Telling a Scotsman reminds me of something I heard recently - I
>>>>> can't remember where - which ran something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you see a man wearing a kilt in London, you know he's a
>>>>> Scotsman. If you see a man wearing a kilt in Edinburgh, you
>>>>> know he's a Highlander.
>>>>> If you see a man wearing a kilt in the Highlands, you know
>>>>> he's an American.
>>>>
>>>> Thinking of things Scottish, there's the Wodehouse comment:
>>>>
>>>> "It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a
>>>> grievance and a ray of sunshine"
>>
>>> I see that now the Government of Scotland is planning a law to define
>>> hate crime as saying something the trans lobby doesn't like, like "men
>>> are not women". To be a hate crime the criminal doesn't have to be in
>>> Scotland: anywhere in the world will do. If you write something that
>>> can be read in Scotland (like this post, for example), they can have
>>> you arrested. I don't feel too worried about that, because I think
>>> that the French police would tell them to piss off if they tried it.
>>
>> Don't be so sure, Gertrude Stein flourished there ...
>>
>>> It's more of a worry for Janet.
>>
>> Look at Canada:
>>
>> U of Waterloo Now
>>
>> https://twitter.com/realChrisBrunet/status/1773574282834010605

> Don't you just love it when someone creates wording that doesn't
> actually say what they meant.

> "Position 1 is open ONLY to scholars who “self-identify as women,
> transgender, gender-fluid, non-binary, or Two-spirit.”

> I think most women self-identify as women.

I suspect they mean exactly that. Cis men are probably overrepresented
in that department, and they want someone else, namely a woman, a
trans man, or a non-binary person.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 2024-04-01 20:52, jerryfriedman wrote:
> lar3ryca wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-01 04:44, Marius_Hancu wrote:
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-04-01 10:05:20 +0000, HVS said:
>>>
>>>>> On 01 Apr 2024, Hibou wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 01/04/2024 à 01:51, jerryfriedman a écrit :
>>>>>>> navi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can one use:
>>>>>>>> 1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>>>>>>> instead of:
>>>>>>>> 2) I know an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is'1' meaningful?
>>>>>>>> Is it idiomatic?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's the basis of a venerable pun.  "You can always tell a
>>>>>>> Yale man, but you can't tell him much."  Or a Scotsman, Texan,
>>>>>>> etc.  If you're interested in the history, see
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/23/tell-much/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Telling a Scotsman reminds me of something I heard recently - I
>>>>>> can't remember where - which ran something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you see a man wearing a kilt in London, you know he's a
>>>>>> Scotsman. If you see a man wearing a kilt in Edinburgh, you
>>>>>> know he's a Highlander.
>>>>>> If you see a man wearing a kilt in the Highlands, you know
>>>>>> he's an American.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking of things Scottish, there's the Wodehouse comment:
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a
>>>>> grievance and a ray of sunshine"
>>>
>>>> I see that now the Government of Scotland is planning a law to
>>>> define hate crime as saying something the trans lobby doesn't like,
>>>> like "men are not women". To be a hate crime the criminal doesn't
>>>> have to be in Scotland: anywhere in the world will do. If you write
>>>> something that can be read in Scotland (like this post, for
>>>> example), they can have you arrested. I don't feel too worried about
>>>> that, because I think that the French police would tell them to piss
>>>> off if they tried it.
>>>
>>> Don't be so sure, Gertrude Stein flourished there ...
>>>
>>>> It's more of a worry for Janet.
>>>
>>> Look at Canada:
>>>
>>> U of Waterloo Now
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/realChrisBrunet/status/1773574282834010605
>
>> Don't you just love it when someone creates wording that doesn't
>> actually say what they meant.
>
>> "Position 1 is open ONLY to scholars who “self-identify as women,
>> transgender, gender-fluid, non-binary, or Two-spirit.”
>
>> I think most women self-identify as women.
>
> I suspect they mean exactly that.  Cis men are probably overrepresented
> in that department, and they want someone else, namely a woman, a
> trans man, or a non-binary person.

I suppose you're right. That interpretation never occurred to me. Such
is my annoyance with political correctness.

--
I thought Ariana Grande was a font.

On 2024-04-02 02:52:34 +0000, jerryfriedman said:

> lar3ryca wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-01 04:44, Marius_Hancu wrote:
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-04-01 10:05:20 +0000, HVS said:
>>>
>>>>> On 01 Apr 2024, Hibou wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 01/04/2024 à 01:51, jerryfriedman a écrit :
>>>>>>> navi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can one use:
>>>>>>>> 1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>>>>>>> instead of:
>>>>>>>> 2) I know an arrogant fool when I see one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is'1' meaningful?
>>>>>>>> Is it idiomatic?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's the basis of a venerable pun.  "You can always tell a
>>>>>>> Yale man, but you can't tell him much."  Or a Scotsman, Texan,
>>>>>>> etc.  If you're interested in the history, see
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/10/23/tell-much/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Telling a Scotsman reminds me of something I heard recently - I
>>>>>> can't remember where - which ran something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you see a man wearing a kilt in London, you know he's a
>>>>>> Scotsman. If you see a man wearing a kilt in Edinburgh, you
>>>>>> know he's a Highlander.
>>>>>> If you see a man wearing a kilt in the Highlands, you know
>>>>>> he's an American.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking of things Scottish, there's the Wodehouse comment:
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a
>>>>> grievance and a ray of sunshine"
>>>
>>>> I see that now the Government of Scotland is planning a law to define
>>>> hate crime as saying something the trans lobby doesn't like, like "men
>>>> are not women". To be a hate crime the criminal doesn't have to be in
>>>> Scotland: anywhere in the world will do. If you write something that
>>>> can be read in Scotland (like this post, for example), they can have
>>>> you arrested. I don't feel too worried about that, because I think that
>>>> the French police would tell them to piss off if they tried it.
>>>
>>> Don't be so sure, Gertrude Stein flourished there ...
>>>
>>>> It's more of a worry for Janet.
>>>
>>> Look at Canada:
>>>
>>> U of Waterloo Now
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/realChrisBrunet/status/1773574282834010605
>
>> Don't you just love it when someone creates wording that doesn't
>> actually say what they meant.
>
>> "Position 1 is open ONLY to scholars who “self-identify as women,
>> transgender, gender-fluid, non-binary, or Two-spirit.”
>
>> I think most women self-identify as women.
>
> I suspect they mean exactly that. Cis men are probably overrepresented
> in that department, and they want someone else, namely a woman, a
> trans man, or a non-binary person.

That's not the natural interpretation of what they say.

--
Athel cb

Le 02/04/2024 à 03:52, jerryfriedman a écrit :
> lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2024-04-01 04:44, Marius_Hancu wrote:
>>>
>>> Look at Canada:
>>>
>>> U of Waterloo Now
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/realChrisBrunet/status/1773574282834010605
>>
>> Don't you just love it when someone creates wording that doesn't
>> actually say what they meant.
>>
>> "Position 1 is open ONLY to scholars who “self-identify as women,
>> transgender, gender-fluid, non-binary, or Two-spirit.”
>>
>> I think most women self-identify as women.
>
> I suspect they mean exactly that.  Cis men are probably overrepresented
> in that department, and they want someone else, namely a woman, a
> trans man, or a non-binary person.

Aye, the Wellington boot's on the other foot these days, and the folk at
the U. of W. are clearly no stick-in-the-muds.

But what would their hero¹ the Duke say?

¹The University's arms are based on his.

arthurvarr@gmail.com (navi) wrote or quoted:
>1) I can tell an arrogant fool when I see one.

"Tell" has transitive meanings that can be used here,
for example, "to discover by observation".

|I can tell a dirty cop when I see one.
"Person of Interest" S01E15 "Blue Code"

jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:

> lar3ryca wrote:
>
> > On 2024-04-01 04:44, Marius_Hancu wrote:
[...]
> >> Look at Canada:
> >>
> >> U of Waterloo Now
> >>
> >> <https://twitter.com/realChrisBrunet/status/1773574282834010605>
>
> > Don't you just love it when someone creates wording that doesn't
> > actually say what they meant.
>
> > "Position 1 is open ONLY to scholars who "self-identify as women,
> > transgender, gender-fluid, non-binary, or Two-spirit."
>
> > I think most women self-identify as women.
>
> I suspect they mean exactly that. Cis men are probably overrepresented
> in that department, and they want someone else, namely a woman, a
> trans man, or a non-binary person.

That is undoubtedly discrimination, whether positive discrimination
or otherwise. I do not think that such overt discrimination would be
permissible here in the UK, in the same way that discrimination by race
or age is not permissible. Mind you, I do suspect that "quotaism" is
quietly observed here, although "tokenism" is supposedly frowned
upon nowadays.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon just is.

Le 01/04/2024 à 12:33, Janet a écrit :
>
> Indeed I am trembling. I am totally helpless, an
> unprotected potential victim, because "woman" has not been
> included in the Hate Bill as a protected characteristic.
>
> The Scottish Govt is currently debating an Assisted
> Dying Bill. Some might consider that the Hate Bill is
> yet another SNP attempt at political suicide.

The protected characteristics are age, disability, race, religion,
gender.... Strangely, they've missed an opportunity to protect
themselves. They've left out being a politician.

On 2024-04-03 07:21:38 +0000, Hibou said:

> Le 01/04/2024 à 12:33, Janet a écrit :
>>
>> Indeed I am trembling. I am totally helpless, an
>> unprotected potential victim, because "woman" has not been
>> included in the Hate Bill as a protected characteristic.
>>
>> The Scottish Govt is currently debating an Assisted
>> Dying Bill. Some might consider that the Hate Bill is
>> yet another SNP attempt at political suicide.
>
> The protected characteristics are age, disability, race, religion,
> gender.... Strangely, they've missed an opportunity to protect
> themselves. They've left out being a politician.

They also left out bottomless stupidity.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

In article <uuj022$3pjjp$2@dont-email.me>, vpaereru-
unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid says...
>
> Le 01/04/2024 à 12:33, Janet a écrit :
> >
> > Indeed I am trembling. I am totally helpless, an
> > unprotected potential victim, because "woman" has not been
> > included in the Hate Bill as a protected characteristic.
> >
> > The Scottish Govt is currently debating an Assisted
> > Dying Bill. Some might consider that the Hate Bill is
> > yet another SNP attempt at political suicide.
>
> The protected characteristics are age, disability, race, religion,
> gender....

Not quite

.. The protected characteristics are
Age
Disability
Race, colour, nationality (including citizenship),
ethnic or national origins
Religion or belief
*Sexual orientation
*Transgender identity
*Variations in sex characteristics

Janet