Discussion:
Chutzpah in the UK
Add Reply
Lewis
2021-05-03 06:54:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.

On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).

The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.

No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
--
Ghosts prefer empty bottles that we've all drunk.
musika
2021-05-03 10:13:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
Yes, that's one of the words that is reasonably common although the
pronunciation differs. I've heard 3 different pronunciations of the word.
--
Ray
UK
Ken Blake
2021-05-03 14:59:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
Yes, that's one of the words that is reasonably common although the
pronunciation differs. I've heard 3 different pronunciations of the word.
Just curious: what are the three pronunciations you've heard?
--
Ken
musika
2021-05-03 15:32:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by musika
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
Yes, that's one of the words that is reasonably common although the
pronunciation differs. I've heard 3 different pronunciations of the word.
Just curious: what are the three pronunciations you've heard?
Just the first character is different.
h,tsh and x (ch of loch)
--
Ray
UK
Ken Blake
2021-05-03 15:43:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Post by musika
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
Yes, that's one of the words that is reasonably common although the
pronunciation differs. I've heard 3 different pronunciations of the word.
Just curious: what are the three pronunciations you've heard?
Just the first character is different.
h,tsh and x (ch of loch)
As far as I'm concerned, the x (ch of loch) way is correct, although
I've heard h.


Tsh is weird--completely wrong, in my opinion--and I've never heard it.

When I studied German in college, most of the Jewish students in my
class pronounced the ch is "Ich" like the "ch in "ach." Getting that
right was one of the hardest things for them.
--
Ken
Stefan Ram
2021-05-03 18:20:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
When I studied German in college, most of the Jewish students in my
class pronounced the ch is "Ich" like the "ch in "ach." Getting that
right was one of the hardest things for them.
David Bowie used to sing some parts of "Heroes" in German on
some recordings. His pronunciation is excellent, he gets all
the Umlauts right. Only the "ch" in "ich" is more like that
in "ach", [x], while it should be [ç].

instructions: [ç] is (slightly simplified) a voiceless and
more close [j] (the closer [j] is written [ʝ], so [ç] is a
voiceless [ʝ]). [j], of course, is the sound as in "yes",
[jᴇs]. So, pronounce a voiceless [j], but reduce the height
of the opening (just before getting a a complete closure) to
cause audible friction.
Snidely
2021-05-04 05:09:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Ken Blake
When I studied German in college, most of the Jewish students in my
class pronounced the ch is "Ich" like the "ch in "ach." Getting that
right was one of the hardest things for them.
David Bowie used to sing some parts of "Heroes" in German on
some recordings. His pronunciation is excellent, he gets all
the Umlauts right. Only the "ch" in "ich" is more like that
in "ach", [x], while it should be [ç].
instructions: [ç] is (slightly simplified) a voiceless and
more close [j] (the closer [j] is written [ʝ], so [ç] is a
voiceless [ʝ]). [j], of course, is the sound as in "yes",
[jᴇs]. So, pronounce a voiceless [j], but reduce the height
of the opening (just before getting a a complete closure) to
cause audible friction.
Isn't that regional in Deutchland? ISTR Herr Panny noting that
southern Germany and northern Germany disagree, with one of them more
like "ish".

/dps
--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean
Peter Moylan
2021-05-04 02:00:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by musika
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the
overwhelming consensus was that very little Yiddish was known
or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the
"contestants" said, "You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole
(this will not seem odd to anyone who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one
Australian who was not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of
Chutzpah.
Yes, that's one of the words that is reasonably common although
the pronunciation differs. I've heard 3 different
pronunciations of the word.
Just curious: what are the three pronunciations you've heard?
Just the first character is different. h,tsh and x (ch of loch)
As far as I'm concerned, the x (ch of loch) way is correct, although
I've heard h.
I once said l'chaim to an Israeli friend, and he corrected my [x] to an
[h]. I suppose it must be regional.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-05-03 10:59:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 3 May 2021 06:54:58 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
The word is in my passive vocabulary.

Just speculating, the word might have entered BrE from AmE via movies
and TV.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
occam
2021-05-03 12:22:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 3 May 2021 06:54:58 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
The word is in my passive vocabulary.
Just speculating, the word might have entered BrE from AmE via movies
and TV.
...and this jokey comedian's definition:

A boy murders his mother and father. In court he asks for clemency from
the judge, on the grounds that he is an orphan. (That's chutzpah.)
Peter T. Daniels
2021-05-03 14:41:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 3 May 2021 06:54:58 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
The word is in my passive vocabulary.
Just speculating, the word might have entered BrE from AmE via movies
and TV.
A boy murders his mother and father. In court he asks for clemency from
the judge, on the grounds that he is an orphan. (That's chutzpah.)
That may well be in Leo Rosten. You can see how it doesn't apply to the
situation of a timid vole.
Bebercito
2021-05-03 15:00:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 3 May 2021 06:54:58 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
The word is in my passive vocabulary.
Just speculating, the word might have entered BrE from AmE via movies
and TV.
A boy murders his mother and father. In court he asks for clemency from
the judge, on the grounds that he is an orphan. (That's chutzpah.)
An instance of chutzpah related to a recent criminal case in France - not
jokey, alas:

https://then24.com/2021/05/03/halimi-case-a-support-group-for-the-killer-sparks-outrage/

A reminder of the case itself, to realize the extent of the chutzpah:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56929040
Lewis
2021-05-03 15:49:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56929040
Where did they find a doctor willing to make up shit about marijuana
causing violent madness? That's complete bullshit.
--
I have NOT lost my mind! I've got a backup around here somewhere.
Janet
2021-05-03 16:29:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Bebercito
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56929040
Where did they find a doctor willing to make up shit about marijuana
causing violent madness? That's complete bullshit.
There's ample medical research into the link between
regular use of cannabis (especially the stronger versions)
and psychosis.

Janet
Lewis
2021-05-03 20:49:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Lewis
Post by Bebercito
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56929040
Where did they find a doctor willing to make up shit about marijuana
causing violent madness? That's complete bullshit.
There's ample medical research into the link between
regular use of cannabis (especially the stronger versions)
and psychosis.
I've know a lot of potheads and the one thing they all shared is that
none of them were psychotic or violent. In fact, in at least two cases
the marijuana was the one drug that kept them from being psychotic.

But there has always been a lot of bullshit and lies about the effects
of drugs like marijuana. After all, the initial laws against it were
promoted with racist images of black men raping white women because they
were "sex crazed" by marijuana.
--
the nasty little sound of a sword being unsheathed right behind one
at just the point when one thought one had disposed of one's
enemies [...] It was that kind of laugh. --Equal Rites
Sam Plusnet
2021-05-04 02:04:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Janet
Post by Lewis
Post by Bebercito
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56929040
Where did they find a doctor willing to make up shit about marijuana
causing violent madness? That's complete bullshit.
There's ample medical research into the link between
regular use of cannabis (especially the stronger versions)
and psychosis.
I've know a lot of potheads and the one thing they all shared is that
none of them were psychotic or violent. In fact, in at least two cases
the marijuana was the one drug that kept them from being psychotic.
But there has always been a lot of bullshit and lies about the effects
of drugs like marijuana. After all, the initial laws against it were
promoted with racist images of black men raping white women because they
were "sex crazed" by marijuana.
"I've never met anyone like that." isn't an effective way to challenge
such a link.
I've never met anyone from Florida, but I accept that Floridians do exist.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Lewis
2021-05-04 19:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
Post by Janet
Post by Lewis
Post by Bebercito
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56929040
Where did they find a doctor willing to make up shit about marijuana
causing violent madness? That's complete bullshit.
There's ample medical research into the link between
regular use of cannabis (especially the stronger versions)
and psychosis.
I've know a lot of potheads and the one thing they all shared is that
none of them were psychotic or violent. In fact, in at least two cases
the marijuana was the one drug that kept them from being psychotic.
But there has always been a lot of bullshit and lies about the effects
of drugs like marijuana. After all, the initial laws against it were
promoted with racist images of black men raping white women because they
were "sex crazed" by marijuana.
"I've never met anyone like that." isn't an effective way to challenge
such a link.
Perhaps you should read the SECOND paragraph as well. The history of
"bad" drugs is a history of racism and completely bullshit lies about
the effects of the "bad" drugs.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I've never met anyone from Florida, but I accept that Floridians do exist.
You can certainly see them. Have you ever seen a violent psychotic
pothead?
--
"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of
complete fools.: - Douglas Adams
Tony Cooper
2021-05-04 20:47:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 4 May 2021 19:26:42 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
But there has always been a lot of bullshit and lies about the effects
of drugs like marijuana. After all, the initial laws against it were
promoted with racist images of black men raping white women because they
were "sex crazed" by marijuana.
"I've never met anyone like that." isn't an effective way to challenge
such a link.
Perhaps you should read the SECOND paragraph as well. The history of
"bad" drugs is a history of racism and completely bullshit lies about
the effects of the "bad" drugs.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I've never met anyone from Florida, but I accept that Floridians do exist.
You can certainly see them. Have you ever seen a violent psychotic
pothead?
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".

Does the use of marijuana cause violent psychotic behavior? Or do
people with violent phychotic behavior turn to marijuana?

Personally, I don't know anyone prone to violent psychotic behavior or
habitual use of majijuana, so I have no opinion.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-05-04 22:51:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 04 May 2021 16:47:00 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 4 May 2021 19:26:42 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
But there has always been a lot of bullshit and lies about the effects
of drugs like marijuana. After all, the initial laws against it were
promoted with racist images of black men raping white women because they
were "sex crazed" by marijuana.
"I've never met anyone like that." isn't an effective way to challenge
such a link.
Perhaps you should read the SECOND paragraph as well. The history of
"bad" drugs is a history of racism and completely bullshit lies about
the effects of the "bad" drugs.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I've never met anyone from Florida, but I accept that Floridians do exist.
You can certainly see them. Have you ever seen a violent psychotic
pothead?
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Does the use of marijuana cause violent psychotic behavior? Or do
people with violent phychotic behavior turn to marijuana?
Personally, I don't know anyone prone to violent psychotic behavior or
habitual use of majijuana, so I have no opinion.
I also have no personal knowldge of this subject.

I searched and found various articles including this one from the NIDA -
the US National Institute on Drug Abuse:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/there-link-between-marijuana-use-psychiatric-disorders

Several studies have linked marijuana use to increased risk for
psychiatric disorders, including psychosis (schizophrenia),
depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders, but whether and to
what extent it actually causes these conditions is not always easy
to determine.32 Recent research suggests that smoking high-potency
marijuana every day could increase the chances of developing
psychosis by nearly five times compared to people who have never
used marijuana.113 The amount of drug used, the age at first use,
and genetic vulnerability have all been shown to influence this
relationship. The strongest evidence to date concerns links between
marijuana use and psychiatric disorders in those with a preexisting
genetic or other vulnerability.61
....
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2021-05-05 13:08:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 04 May 2021 16:47:00 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 4 May 2021 19:26:42 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
But there has always been a lot of bullshit and lies about the effects
of drugs like marijuana. After all, the initial laws against it were
promoted with racist images of black men raping white women because they
were "sex crazed" by marijuana.
"I've never met anyone like that." isn't an effective way to challenge
such a link.
Perhaps you should read the SECOND paragraph as well. The history of
"bad" drugs is a history of racism and completely bullshit lies about
the effects of the "bad" drugs.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I've never met anyone from Florida, but I accept that Floridians do exist.
You can certainly see them. Have you ever seen a violent psychotic
pothead?
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Does the use of marijuana cause violent psychotic behavior? Or do
people with violent phychotic behavior turn to marijuana?
Personally, I don't know anyone prone to violent psychotic behavior or
habitual use of majijuana, so I have no opinion.
I also have no personal knowldge of this subject.
I searched and found various articles including this one from the NIDA -
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/there-link-between-marijuana-use-psychiatric-disorders
Several studies have linked marijuana use to increased risk for
psychiatric disorders, including psychosis (schizophrenia),
depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders, but whether and to
what extent it actually causes these conditions is not always easy
to determine.32 Recent research suggests that smoking high-potency
marijuana every day could increase the chances of developing
psychosis by nearly five times compared to people who have never
used marijuana.113 The amount of drug used, the age at first use,
and genetic vulnerability have all been shown to influence this
relationship. The strongest evidence to date concerns links between
marijuana use and psychiatric disorders in those with a preexisting
genetic or other vulnerability.61
At the bottom is the date "July 2020," suggesting this report
was a product of the waning days of the t**** administration,
and there's little reason to suppose the NIDA was any less
politicized than the other Institutes of Health, such as the
ones that mismanaged the covid response. Their then heads
have been unavailable to the press for 100+ days now.

At least the report has the decency to note that Correlation
Does Not Imply Causation.

Their brief would have been to produce _anything_ that would
keep Congress from following the -- is it now a majority of? --
states in Federally decriminalizing marijuana.

Which is a bit odd, since the tobacco companies are poised
to commercialize and profit from the trade, which will be
heavily taxed.

This year's New Jersey legislation requires that former "drug
dealers" have priority in licenses for selling the stuff legally,
though it's not yet commercially available.
Adam Funk
2021-05-06 08:19:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 04 May 2021 16:47:00 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 4 May 2021 19:26:42 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
But there has always been a lot of bullshit and lies about the effects
of drugs like marijuana. After all, the initial laws against it were
promoted with racist images of black men raping white women because they
were "sex crazed" by marijuana.
"I've never met anyone like that." isn't an effective way to challenge
such a link.
Perhaps you should read the SECOND paragraph as well. The history of
"bad" drugs is a history of racism and completely bullshit lies about
the effects of the "bad" drugs.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I've never met anyone from Florida, but I accept that Floridians do exist.
You can certainly see them. Have you ever seen a violent psychotic
pothead?
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Does the use of marijuana cause violent psychotic behavior? Or do
people with violent phychotic behavior turn to marijuana?
Personally, I don't know anyone prone to violent psychotic behavior or
habitual use of majijuana, so I have no opinion.
I also have no personal knowldge of this subject.
I searched and found various articles including this one from the NIDA -
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/there-link-between-marijuana-use-psychiatric-disorders
Several studies have linked marijuana use to increased risk for
psychiatric disorders, including psychosis (schizophrenia),
depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders, but whether and to
what extent it actually causes these conditions is not always easy
to determine.32 Recent research suggests that smoking high-potency
marijuana every day could increase the chances of developing
psychosis by nearly five times compared to people who have never
used marijuana.113 The amount of drug used, the age at first use,
and genetic vulnerability have all been shown to influence this
relationship. The strongest evidence to date concerns links between
marijuana use and psychiatric disorders in those with a preexisting
genetic or other vulnerability.61
At the bottom is the date "July 2020," suggesting this report
was a product of the waning days of the t**** administration,
and there's little reason to suppose the NIDA was any less
politicized than the other Institutes of Health, such as the
ones that mismanaged the covid response. Their then heads
have been unavailable to the press for 100+ days now.
At least the report has the decency to note that Correlation
Does Not Imply Causation.
Their brief would have been to produce _anything_ that would
keep Congress from following the -- is it now a majority of? --
states in Federally decriminalizing marijuana.
Which is a bit odd, since the tobacco companies are poised
to commercialize and profit from the trade, which will be
heavily taxed.
This year's New Jersey legislation requires that former "drug
dealers" have priority in licenses for selling the stuff legally,
though it's not yet commercially available.
That's interesting --- what's the logic there, to draw them out of the
other criminal activity that's connected with drug-dealing?

I'd be surprised if heavy long-term cannabis use didn't do *some* harm
since that applies to many recreational drugs. But I'd expect it to
compare favourably with most of the others.

Is anyone working on a scientific test for being "under the influence"
of it while operating machinery (including driving)? We have that for
ethanol, but AIUI current "drug tests" are all intended to show
recent-ish use rather than the current effects.

Another legitimate concern is that while THC is almost certainly
harmless in moderation, the usual route of administration is
not. Smoking *any* plant matter sucks in tar & carbon monoxide. People
should be encouraged to take it differently.
--
In the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for
-£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the
myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Verity Stob)
Peter T. Daniels
2021-05-06 15:15:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 04 May 2021 16:47:00 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 4 May 2021 19:26:42 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
But there has always been a lot of bullshit and lies about the effects
of drugs like marijuana. After all, the initial laws against it were
promoted with racist images of black men raping white women because they
were "sex crazed" by marijuana.
"I've never met anyone like that." isn't an effective way to challenge
such a link.
Perhaps you should read the SECOND paragraph as well. The history of
"bad" drugs is a history of racism and completely bullshit lies about
the effects of the "bad" drugs.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I've never met anyone from Florida, but I accept that Floridians do exist.
You can certainly see them. Have you ever seen a violent psychotic
pothead?
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Does the use of marijuana cause violent psychotic behavior? Or do
people with violent phychotic behavior turn to marijuana?
Personally, I don't know anyone prone to violent psychotic behavior or
habitual use of majijuana, so I have no opinion.
I also have no personal knowldge of this subject.
I searched and found various articles including this one from the NIDA -
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/there-link-between-marijuana-use-psychiatric-disorders
Several studies have linked marijuana use to increased risk for
psychiatric disorders, including psychosis (schizophrenia),
depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders, but whether and to
what extent it actually causes these conditions is not always easy
to determine.32 Recent research suggests that smoking high-potency
marijuana every day could increase the chances of developing
psychosis by nearly five times compared to people who have never
used marijuana.113 The amount of drug used, the age at first use,
and genetic vulnerability have all been shown to influence this
relationship. The strongest evidence to date concerns links between
marijuana use and psychiatric disorders in those with a preexisting
genetic or other vulnerability.61
At the bottom is the date "July 2020," suggesting this report
was a product of the waning days of the t**** administration,
and there's little reason to suppose the NIDA was any less
politicized than the other Institutes of Health, such as the
ones that mismanaged the covid response. Their then heads
have been unavailable to the press for 100+ days now.
At least the report has the decency to note that Correlation
Does Not Imply Causation.
Their brief would have been to produce _anything_ that would
keep Congress from following the -- is it now a majority of? --
states in Federally decriminalizing marijuana.
Which is a bit odd, since the tobacco companies are poised
to commercialize and profit from the trade, which will be
heavily taxed.
This year's New Jersey legislation requires that former "drug
dealers" have priority in licenses for selling the stuff legally,
though it's not yet commercially available.
That's interesting --- what's the logic there, to draw them out of the
other criminal activity that's connected with drug-dealing?
Simply because all the drug laws were (s) written and (b) enforced
to impact minorities far more than whites. You could look on it as
a sort of "reparations," still a word too hot for even AOC to handle.
Post by Adam Funk
I'd be surprised if heavy long-term cannabis use didn't do *some* harm
since that applies to many recreational drugs. But I'd expect it to
compare favourably with most of the others.
Is anyone working on a scientific test for being "under the influence"
of it while operating machinery (including driving)? We have that for
ethanol, but AIUI current "drug tests" are all intended to show
recent-ish use rather than the current effects.
Another legitimate concern is that while THC is almost certainly
harmless in moderation, the usual route of administration is
not. Smoking *any* plant matter sucks in tar & carbon monoxide. People
should be encouraged to take it differently.
There must be figures from the industry about the relative sales of
smokables, edibles, rubbables, and whatever other forms there are.
Ads for CBD -containing products are all over the TV (whether or not
CBD adds any benefit to the particular application). Oh, there's another
thing -- the FDA presumably can't support research into the effects,
since any use is federally illegal.
Jerry Friedman
2021-05-06 18:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Peter T. Daniels
This year's New Jersey legislation requires that former "drug
dealers" have priority in licenses for selling the stuff legally,
though it's not yet commercially available.
That's interesting --- what's the logic there, to draw them out of the
other criminal activity that's connected with drug-dealing?
Or to favor intrepid long-time small-scale dealers over Big Tobacco?
Post by Adam Funk
I'd be surprised if heavy long-term cannabis use didn't do *some* harm
since that applies to many recreational drugs. But I'd expect it to
compare favourably with most of the others.
Is anyone working on a scientific test for being "under the influence"
of it while operating machinery (including driving)? We have that for
ethanol, but AIUI current "drug tests" are all intended to show
recent-ish use rather than the current effects.
Interesting question.
Post by Adam Funk
Another legitimate concern is that while THC is almost certainly
harmless in moderation, the usual route of administration is
not. Smoking *any* plant matter sucks in tar & carbon monoxide. People
should be encouraged to take it differently.
Quite. I've been encouraging people to take it differently for some
decades now. Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, I've raised the
point two or three times.
--
Jerry Friedman
Ken Blake
2021-05-04 23:01:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 4 May 2021 19:26:42 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
But there has always been a lot of bullshit and lies about the effects
of drugs like marijuana. After all, the initial laws against it were
promoted with racist images of black men raping white women because they
were "sex crazed" by marijuana.
"I've never met anyone like that." isn't an effective way to challenge
such a link.
Perhaps you should read the SECOND paragraph as well. The history of
"bad" drugs is a history of racism and completely bullshit lies about
the effects of the "bad" drugs.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I've never met anyone from Florida, but I accept that Floridians do exist.
You can certainly see them. Have you ever seen a violent psychotic
pothead?
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
To change the subject somewhat, I never understood what was supposed to
be so perplexing about that question. Clearly the egg came before the
chicken, and the chicken egg came after the chicken.
--
Ken
Sam Plusnet
2021-05-05 00:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 4 May 2021 19:26:42 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
But there has always been a lot of bullshit and lies about the effects
of drugs like marijuana. After all, the initial laws against it were
promoted with racist images of black men raping white women because they
were "sex crazed" by marijuana.
"I've never met anyone like that." isn't an effective way to challenge
such a link.
Perhaps you should read the SECOND paragraph as well. The history of
"bad" drugs is a history of racism and completely bullshit lies about
the effects of the "bad" drugs.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I've never met anyone from Florida, but I accept that Floridians do exist.
You can certainly see them. Have you ever seen a violent psychotic
pothead?
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Correlation alone isn't proof of causation, but the correlation alone is
worthy of research.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter T. Daniels
2021-05-05 13:10:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Correlation alone isn't proof of causation, but the correlation alone is
worthy of research.
I don't see why it's a problem. The first evolutionally recognizable
"chicken" hatched from an egg laid by the last "non-chicken" in
that evolutionary line, so clearly the egg came first.
Quinn C
2021-05-05 13:45:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Correlation alone isn't proof of causation, but the correlation alone is
worthy of research.
I don't see why it's a problem. The first evolutionally recognizable
"chicken" hatched from an egg laid by the last "non-chicken" in
that evolutionary line, so clearly the egg came first.
That's what I used to think, but it's based on an outdated model of
species being clearly delineated.

There's more to research in the process(es) of speciation yet.
--
Sure, everybody has the right to speak their opinion; but not
the right to identify this opinion as truth, and erect pyres
for dissenters.
-- Hedwig Dohm (1903), my translation
Peter T. Daniels
2021-05-05 19:23:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Correlation alone isn't proof of causation, but the correlation alone is
worthy of research.
I don't see why it's a problem. The first evolutionally recognizable
"chicken" hatched from an egg laid by the last "non-chicken" in
that evolutionary line, so clearly the egg came first.
That's what I used to think, but it's based on an outdated model of
species being clearly delineated.
There's more to research in the process(es) of speciation yet.
That makes the question, not the answer, meaningless.

Didn't askees normally respond, "What do you mean by 'chicken'?"
Jerry Friedman
2021-05-05 19:51:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Correlation alone isn't proof of causation, but the correlation alone is
worthy of research.
I don't see why it's a problem. The first evolutionally recognizable
"chicken" hatched from an egg laid by the last "non-chicken" in
that evolutionary line, so clearly the egg came first.
That's what I used to think, but it's based on an outdated model of
species being clearly delineated.
There's more to research in the process(es) of speciation yet.
Chicken ancestors produced eggs for hundreds of millions of years
before there was anything that could be called a chicken.

Anyway, Tony's question used the phrase in a well-established
figurative sense, asking which of two phenomena caused the other--
assuming both exist and are causally related.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2021-05-06 00:58:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Correlation alone isn't proof of causation, but the correlation
alone is worthy of research.
I don't see why it's a problem. The first evolutionally
recognizable "chicken" hatched from an egg laid by the last
"non-chicken" in that evolutionary line, so clearly the egg came
first.
That's what I used to think, but it's based on an outdated model of
species being clearly delineated.
There's more to research in the process(es) of speciation yet.
I once wrote something along the lines of "Humans appeared somewhere
between five million years ago and a hundred thousand years ago. The
wide range doesn't mean that we don't know. It means that the process
was one of slow and gradual change. There never was a point where
someone was "human" but his/her parents were not.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Sam Plusnet
2021-05-06 20:06:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
I once wrote something along the lines of "Humans appeared somewhere
between five million years ago and a hundred thousand years ago. The
wide range doesn't mean that we don't know. It means that the process
was one of slow and gradual change. There never was a point where
someone was "human" but his/her parents were not.
"Where's Daddy?"
"We don't know. Link's gone missing."
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
CDB
2021-05-06 11:38:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Correlation alone isn't proof of causation, but the correlation
alone is worthy of research.
I don't see why it's a problem. The first evolutionally
recognizable "chicken" hatched from an egg laid by the last
"non-chicken" in that evolutionary line, so clearly the egg came
first.
That's what I used to think, but it's based on an outdated model of
species being clearly delineated.
There's more to research in the process(es) of speciation yet.
And God created the chicken, and behold, it was a good layer.
Quinn C
2021-05-06 16:49:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Correlation alone isn't proof of causation, but the correlation
alone is worthy of research.
I don't see why it's a problem. The first evolutionally
recognizable "chicken" hatched from an egg laid by the last
"non-chicken" in that evolutionary line, so clearly the egg came
first.
That's what I used to think, but it's based on an outdated model of
species being clearly delineated.
There's more to research in the process(es) of speciation yet.
And God created the chicken, and behold, it was a good layer.
Indeed, and we're just scratching the surface here.
--
Are you sure your sanity chip is fully screwed in, Sir?
-- Kryten to Rimmer (Red Dwarf)
Peter T. Daniels
2021-05-05 13:11:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Correlation alone isn't proof of causation, but the correlation alone is
worthy of research.
I don't see why it's a problem. The first evolutionally recognizable
"chicken" hatched from an egg laid by the last "non-chicken" in
that evolutionary line, so clearly the egg came first.
Peter Moylan
2021-05-06 01:00:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Correlation alone isn't proof of causation, but the correlation
alone is worthy of research.
I don't see why it's a problem. The first evolutionally recognizable
"chicken" hatched from an egg laid by the last "non-chicken" in that
evolutionary line, so clearly the egg came first.
I still remember a cartoon of a chicken and egg in bed together, with
the egg lying back and smoking a cigarette. The chicken was saying
"Well, at least we know the answer to that old riddle".
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
CDB
2021-05-06 11:42:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
My question would be along the lines of "Which came first? The
chicken or the egg?".
Correlation alone isn't proof of causation, but the correlation
alone is worthy of research.
I don't see why it's a problem. The first evolutionally
recognizable "chicken" hatched from an egg laid by the last
"non-chicken" in that evolutionary line, so clearly the egg came
first.
I still remember a cartoon of a chicken and egg in bed together,
with the egg lying back and smoking a cigarette. The chicken was
saying "Well, at least we know the answer to that old riddle".
In the _Playboy_ version, the chicken was saying bitterly "Of course you
came first. You always come first".
Sam Plusnet
2021-05-05 00:22:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
Post by Janet
Post by Lewis
Post by Bebercito
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56929040
Where did they find a doctor willing to make up shit about marijuana
causing violent madness? That's complete bullshit.
There's ample medical research into the link between
regular use of cannabis (especially the stronger versions)
and psychosis.
I've know a lot of potheads and the one thing they all shared is that
none of them were psychotic or violent. In fact, in at least two cases
the marijuana was the one drug that kept them from being psychotic.
But there has always been a lot of bullshit and lies about the effects
of drugs like marijuana. After all, the initial laws against it were
promoted with racist images of black men raping white women because they
were "sex crazed" by marijuana.
"I've never met anyone like that." isn't an effective way to challenge
such a link.
Perhaps you should read the SECOND paragraph as well. The history of
"bad" drugs is a history of racism and completely bullshit lies about
the effects of the "bad" drugs.
I did read that paragraph. It contained nothing that any person in this
newsgroup would not have already known. It didn't offer any real
support your main theme.
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
I've never met anyone from Florida, but I accept that Floridians do exist.
You can certainly see them. Have you ever seen a violent psychotic
pothead?
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Madhu
2021-05-04 03:53:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Bebercito
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56929040
Where did they find a doctor willing to make up shit about marijuana
causing violent madness? That's complete bullshit.
There's ample medical research into the link between regular use of
cannabis (especially the stronger versions) and psychosis.
I've know a lot of potheads and the one thing they all shared is that
none of them were psychotic or violent. In fact, in at least two cases
the marijuana was the one drug that kept them from being psychotic.
There;s the problem right there. Take away their stash and you have two
violent psychotics ready to take on the mon.
Post by Lewis
But there has always been a lot of bullshit and lies about the effects
of drugs like marijuana. After all, the initial laws against it were
promoted with racist images of black men raping white women because they
were "sex crazed" by marijuana.
You are also not accounting for the FBI (or was that CIA?) Genetically
modified designer weed - you can bet that those strains weren't given in
the garden of eden to adam and likely have pig dna too for enhanced
psychosis

Marijuana legalization and taxation is the worst thing that can happen
to the US. I say let the drugrunning ***** keep the money dont give it
to dems. the weedoctors and bigpharma and the satanic strains will take
all the fun out of it and validate all the (earlier) bad press about it
and make it truly the disease it was made out to be
bil...@shaw.ca
2021-05-04 05:41:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Lewis
Post by Bebercito
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56929040
Where did they find a doctor willing to make up shit about marijuana
causing violent madness? That's complete bullshit.
There's ample medical research into the link between
regular use of cannabis (especially the stronger versions)
and psychosis.
Got a study you can point to? I've known regular marijuana smokers for well over 50 years, some of them
heavy smokers. I have yet to encounter a case of marijuana-induced psychosis, or any evidence to suggest
there are enough cases to make a decent sample.

bill
Snidely
2021-05-04 06:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@shaw.ca
Post by Janet
Post by Lewis
Where did they find a doctor willing to make up shit about marijuana
causing violent madness? That's complete bullshit.
There's ample medical research into the link between
regular use of cannabis (especially the stronger versions)
and psychosis.
Got a study you can point to? I've known regular marijuana smokers for well
over 50 years, some of them heavy smokers. I have yet to encounter a case of
marijuana-induced psychosis, or any evidence to suggest there are enough
cases to make a decent sample.
Hey, Bill! Good to see you! How's the Van weather?

/dps
--
You could try being nicer and politer
Post by ***@shaw.ca
instead, and see how that works out.
-- Katy Jennison
bil...@shaw.ca
2021-05-04 20:03:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
(snip)
Hey, Bill! Good to see you! How's the Van weather?
We had May in April: lots of sunshine, reasonable temperatures.
May so far is April-like: much overcast, more showers than we need.

As for the implied question, "Where have you been?", I lost my ability
to post on GooGoo some time ago. I wasn't sure what the problem was,
but figured that Apple's relentless march to dizzying heights of
Mac OS improvements had finally overtaken GooGoo's ability to keep up.

Eventually a solution presented itself: It turned out that an aging iMac
I keep around to handle email using an older OS had no problem at all
with Web-based Google Groups. I certainly miss the upgradeable stand-alone
Mac news readers that kept me going for 25 years-plus, but
I'm back and posting. Hope it lasts.

bill
Lewis
2021-05-03 15:06:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 3 May 2021 06:54:58 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
The word is in my passive vocabulary.
Just speculating, the word might have entered BrE from AmE via movies
and TV.
A boy murders his mother and father. In court he asks for clemency from
the judge, on the grounds that he is an orphan. (That's chutzpah.)
I read that definition first in Leo Rostene's "The Joy of Yiddish".

I no longer have that book, however, as it was my father's and didn't
make its way to me after his death.
--
Personal isn't the same as important
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-05-03 16:05:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ … ]
Post by Lewis
Post by occam
A boy murders his mother and father. In court he asks for clemency from
the judge, on the grounds that he is an orphan. (That's chutzpah.)
I read that definition first in Leo Rostene's "The Joy of Yiddish".
I don't remember when I first heard it, but it was a very long time
ago, probably 60 years ago.
Post by Lewis
I no longer have that book, however, as it was my father's and didn't
make its way to me after his death.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Peter T. Daniels
2021-05-03 14:38:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 3 May 2021 06:54:58 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
The word is in my passive vocabulary.
Just speculating, the word might have entered BrE from AmE via movies
and TV.
However, in real Yinglish it isn't used in a construction like "You've got no
chutzpah." Chutzpah is a daring that transcends norms, not a synonym
of "courage" or whatever might be attributed to a normally-behaving vole.
It becomes evident after the fact. "It took real chutzpah for Harris to
challenge Biden on his busing position 40+ years ago when she was
actually angling to be his veep choice."
Janet
2021-05-03 11:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of
Chutzpah.

I would imagine that Yiddish is still a living, spoken
language among Britain's Orthodox Jewish community.

But otherwise, the long history of Jewish diaspora and
integration in Britain brought many Yiddish terms into
familiar recognition and use. Cockney dialect contains
many.

Br E is stuffed with words acquired from other
languages, from centuries of immigration, exploration and
colonialisation.

Janet
Lewis
2021-05-03 15:03:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
I would imagine that Yiddish is still a living, spoken
language among Britain's Orthodox Jewish community.
Which has nothing to do with seven comedians on a UK program.
Post by Janet
But otherwise, the long history of Jewish diaspora and
integration in Britain brought many Yiddish terms into
familiar recognition and use. Cockney dialect contains
many.
Which again, has nothing to do with what I posted.
Post by Janet
Br E is stuffed with words acquired from other
languages, from centuries of immigration, exploration and
colonialisation.
Perhaps actually read the content of the message you are replying to?
--
Sometimes the only thing you could do for people was to be there.
--Soul Music
Mack A. Damia
2021-05-03 16:53:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 3 May 2021 15:03:56 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Janet
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
I would imagine that Yiddish is still a living, spoken
language among Britain's Orthodox Jewish community.
Which has nothing to do with seven comedians on a UK program.
Post by Janet
But otherwise, the long history of Jewish diaspora and
integration in Britain brought many Yiddish terms into
familiar recognition and use. Cockney dialect contains
many.
Which again, has nothing to do with what I posted.
Post by Janet
Br E is stuffed with words acquired from other
languages, from centuries of immigration, exploration and
colonialisation.
Perhaps actually read the content of the message you are replying to?
Argo....
Ken Blake
2021-05-03 14:57:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
In a recent discussion on the use of Yiddish in the UK the overwhelming
consensus was that very little Yiddish was known or used in the UK.
I don't remember the discussion, but what you say is probably true. Most
US Jews these days don't know Yiddish, and it's likely that the same is
true in the UK. For example, I'm not a practicing Jew, but I'm of Jewish
descent and I don't know Yiddish except for a handful of words,
including some words that are almost the same as German words I know.

Here a list of commonly-known Yiddish words (I know almost all of them,
and probably most Americans also do; I don't know about the UK):

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/yiddish-words-phrases-meaning-dictionary
Post by Lewis
On the most recent episode of Taskmaster one of the "contestants" said,
"You've Got No Chutzpah" to a toy vole (this will not seem odd to anyone
who's seen the show).
The show is all UK people with the exception of one Australian who was
not the one who said the above quote.
No one seemed to be at all confused about the meaning of Chutzpah.
That's one of the handful of words I know. I think it's probably known
by a lot of people.
--
Ken
Loading...