"epistle side" and "gospel side": significance?

[Bob Cunningham]

In Jan Karon's books about Mitford and Father Tim's
Episcopal church, there are mentions of an "epistle side"
and a "gospel side". Some of the characters in the books
normally sit on the epistle side, while others sit on the
gospel side.

At http://www.allsaintssmyrna.org/www/html/glossary.htm
there's a glossary of terms pertaining to the Episcopal
Church. Among other things, it says

Lesson
also the Epistle; any reading from the Bible except
the Gospels or Psalms; usually read on the opposite
side of the church from where the Gospel is read; in
older practice the Lesson was read from the "Epistle
Side"--the right side facing the altar, while the
Gospel was read from the "Gospel Side"--the left side
facing the altar. Current practice in many Episcopal
churches does not conform to this older pattern.

That seems clear enough, but what is not clear is the
significance of someone sitting on one side or the other.
If I were to sit regularly on the gospel side -- or the
epistle side -- what would that tell the other congregants
about me, if anything?

[Tim]

It might say that your are refreshingly human. We all tend to occupy a
favorite seat in any venue in which we find ourself.

Regards,
Tim

Mr. Gerund

[Mike Lyle]

Post by Tim
It might say that your are refreshingly human. We all tend to occupy a
favorite seat in any venue in which we find ourself.

And there's also "Cantoris" and "Decani" -- "the Cantor's" and "the
Dean's" -- sides for the choir-stalls in traditionally laid-out
English churches and college chapels. This can have musical
significance when the music is antiphonal; and may also be used as a
way of dividing the choir for things like cricket matches and
cherry-stone-spitting competitions.

Some places of worship have seats reserved for particular persons:
earlier this year I took a break in the seat marked "Bishop of Dover"
in Canterbury Cathedral.

Mike.

[Sara Moffat Lorimer]

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Tim
It might say that your are refreshingly human. We all tend to occupy a
favorite seat in any venue in which we find ourself.

And there's also "Cantoris" and "Decani" -- "the Cantor's" and "the
Dean's" -- sides for the choir-stalls in traditionally laid-out
English churches and college chapels.

And -- just to bring the discussion down a few levels -- the "Phil side"
and "Bob side" of the areana at Grateful Dead shows, for two of the band
members.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Tim
It might say that your are refreshingly human. We all tend to occupy a
favorite seat in any venue in which we find ourself.

And there's also "Cantoris" and "Decani" -- "the Cantor's" and "the
Dean's" -- sides for the choir-stalls in traditionally laid-out
English churches and college chapels. This can have musical
significance when the music is antiphonal; and may also be used as a
way of dividing the choir for things like cricket matches and
cherry-stone-spitting competitions.

OK for you. For choir practice, I always sit in the second seat
on the right, beside a retired Minister of the Crown. But I find
that I can't face choir practice without being appropriately
stoked up. In the words of my youth, a visit to the church is
an Occasion of Sin. I find myself perpetually confused by those
who are able to accept religion while sober.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Bob Cunningham
In Jan Karon's books about Mitford and Father Tim's
Episcopal church, there are mentions of an "epistle side"
and a "gospel side". Some of the characters in the books
normally sit on the epistle side, while others sit on the
gospel side.
At http://www.allsaintssmyrna.org/www/html/glossary.htm
there's a glossary of terms pertaining to the Episcopal
Church. Among other things, it says
Lesson
also the Epistle; any reading from the Bible except
the Gospels or Psalms; usually read on the opposite
side of the church from where the Gospel is read; in
older practice the Lesson was read from the "Epistle
Side"--the right side facing the altar, while the
Gospel was read from the "Gospel Side"--the left side
facing the altar. Current practice in many Episcopal
churches does not conform to this older pattern.
That seems clear enough, but what is not clear is the
significance of someone sitting on one side or the other.
If I were to sit regularly on the gospel side -- or the
epistle side -- what would that tell the other congregants
about me, if anything?

It could tell them whether you were male or female.

I was told that the practice began because in Europe, as Christianity spread,
most of the heathen lived to the north, so they began reading the gospel on
the north side to remind the congregation of the need to preach the gospel to
them.

That may be a pious legend, however.

There was also a long-standing custom in the Christian church for males to sit
on the south side, and females on the north.

In southern Africa, and certainly in Zulu culture, there is a custom that on
entering a house males go to the right, and females to the left. In many
churches in that part of the world, including Anglican ones, that custom is
still followed. It may have been taught by Anglican missionaries from the UK,
who saw it as an opportu nity to reintroduce a pious custom that had fallen
into disuse in England (like women covering their heads).

It often continues, however, in the custom at weddings for the bridegroom (and
family) to be on the south side, and the bride on the left.

On Orthodox Churches there is no "epistle" and "gospel" side, but the custom
of males on the south and females on the north continues to be encouraged in
some parishes, especially in Russia, but also in Greece, where, however, it is
more dependent on the whims of the parish priest.

Interestingly enough, in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church the custom is reversed
- males go to the north, and females to the south.

[Anna Skipka]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Bob Cunningham
In Jan Karon's books about Mitford and Father Tim's
Episcopal church, there are mentions of an "epistle side"
and a "gospel side". Some of the characters in the books
normally sit on the epistle side, while others sit on the
gospel side.
At http://www.allsaintssmyrna.org/www/html/glossary.htm
there's a glossary of terms pertaining to the Episcopal
Church. Among other things, it says
Lesson
also the Epistle; any reading from the Bible except
the Gospels or Psalms; usually read on the opposite
side of the church from where the Gospel is read; in
older practice the Lesson was read from the "Epistle
Side"--the right side facing the altar, while the
Gospel was read from the "Gospel Side"--the left side
facing the altar. Current practice in many Episcopal
churches does not conform to this older pattern.
That seems clear enough, but what is not clear is the
significance of someone sitting on one side or the other.
If I were to sit regularly on the gospel side -- or the
epistle side -- what would that tell the other congregants
about me, if anything?

It could tell them whether you were male or female.

Wouldn't that be the "spear side" and "distaff side"?

-skipka

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Anna Skipka

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Bob Cunningham
In Jan Karon's books about Mitford and Father Tim's
Episcopal church, there are mentions of an "epistle side"
and a "gospel side". Some of the characters in the books
normally sit on the epistle side, while others sit on the
gospel side.
At http://www.allsaintssmyrna.org/www/html/glossary.htm
there's a glossary of terms pertaining to the Episcopal
Church. Among other things, it says
Lesson
also the Epistle; any reading from the Bible except
the Gospels or Psalms; usually read on the opposite
side of the church from where the Gospel is read; in
older practice the Lesson was read from the "Epistle
Side"--the right side facing the altar, while the
Gospel was read from the "Gospel Side"--the left side
facing the altar. Current practice in many Episcopal
churches does not conform to this older pattern.
That seems clear enough, but what is not clear is the
significance of someone sitting on one side or the other.
If I were to sit regularly on the gospel side -- or the
epistle side -- what would that tell the other congregants
about me, if anything?

It could tell them whether you were male or female.

Wouldn't that be the "spear side" and "distaff side"?

It could be, but that is not the question being asked.

I suspect that the only people who could really answer the question would be
those who was very familiar with Anglo-Catholicism in the 1920s.

Since there don't seem to be any of those reading this, one way of approaching
an answer, or prompting one, is to consider various reasons people might have
for being on different sides of the church.

Among Anglo-Catholics, one of the duties of a server at Low Mass was to move
the missal from the epistle side to the gospel side of the altar. That went
out in the mid 1960s, when Anglican and Roman Catholic clergy began facing
westwards in celebrating Mass.

A priest who had been ordained before 1955 might know, but others might
half-remember.

There was a similar discussion in AUE a few months ago about the phrase
"interesting children". Those who used it assumed that everyone who read it
knew the meaning well enough not to need its significance explained, and a
later generation really has no idea what they meant by it, because no
explanations survive. Similarly, no explanations appear to survive of the
significance of being on the gospel side or the epistle side.

If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten tradition,
and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
irrecoverable.

[C. Wingate]

Post by Steve Hayes
Among Anglo-Catholics, one of the duties of a server at Low Mass was to move
the missal from the epistle side to the gospel side of the altar. That went
out in the mid 1960s, when Anglican and Roman Catholic clergy began facing
westwards in celebrating Mass.

Well, I remember a decade ago going to Wednesday noon mass at Ascension
& St. Agnes in DC, and they were still doing all this (and facing
"East", but then the chapel had a shelf altar), so I'd say it was "not
dead yet". Fr. Davenport there is about my age, so it's a pretty sure
thing he learned this in the '70s or therabouts.

Liturgical traditions have always been subject to a variety of readings,
and to say that they all have a definite sense is usually misleading if
not futile. Perhaps the safest apporach is to write to Ms. Karom (c.o.
her publisher) and see if she will tell you what *she* meant.

C. Wingate

[Mike Lyle]

***@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<***@news.saix.net>...
[...]

Post by Steve Hayes
If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten tradition,
and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
irrecoverable.

This kind of thing is very rarely inexplicable: the Church is an
enormous multi-national organisation based meticulously on the written
word. May even be Googlable.

Good old OED1 says the Epistle is read at the south side, and the
Gospel at the north, but unfortunately doesn't say why.

I have an oldish colour-plated book giving the Order of Service of
Holy Communion in very High-Church terms, with handy hints on what to
think at various key moments; but it doesn't explain the handedness of
these readings.

Mike.

[Priscilla Ballou]

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Steve Hayes
If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten tradition,
and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
irrecoverable.

This kind of thing is very rarely inexplicable: the Church is an
enormous multi-national organisation based meticulously on the written
word. May even be Googlable.
Good old OED1 says the Epistle is read at the south side, and the
Gospel at the north, but unfortunately doesn't say why.

Because the altar's at the east. It's not that the Epistle is
associated with the direction south, but it's to the right of the altar
as you look at it, and the altar's in the east end of the
traditionally-placed church. Mirror that for the Gospel.

Priscilla

[Saint Fu Fu]

Post by Priscilla Ballou

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Steve Hayes
If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten tradition,
and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
irrecoverable.

This kind of thing is very rarely inexplicable: the Church is an
enormous multi-national organisation based meticulously on the written
word. May even be Googlable.
Good old OED1 says the Epistle is read at the south side, and the
Gospel at the north, but unfortunately doesn't say why.

Because the altar's at the east. It's not that the Epistle is
associated with the direction south, but it's to the right of the altar
as you look at it, and the altar's in the east end of the
traditionally-placed church. Mirror that for the Gospel.
Priscilla
--
The Episcopal Church welcomes you... and you... and you....

Actually, if God is *facing* the congregation (or we are facing God)
then "Stage Right" would be God's right side, our left. The North side.
Since Christ is at God's right hand, he would be to the North of us.

St. Fu Fu

[DENNIS THOMPSON]

But, I keep hoping my parish will not ascend to that degree of
"highness"..... sadly, for some of us, it has left the old "low church",,,,

As the "lead" usher at the Third Sunday Family Service at my Episcopal
parish, I have the duty of informing the servers at the rail of persons

who

require communion to be served in their pews. I have alway felt that I
should say, e.g., "the elderly lady/gentleman on the epistle/gospel side
center aisle",,,, but when I get to the rail to deliver the message
invariably I forget which is epistle or gospel,,,, and then because the
server is facing me, I am not certain if he/she knows which side when I
refer to as the left side center aisle..... Such is the life of an
Episcopal usher.

My *dear* good fellow! THAT is what ceremony is *for*! You say in
sonorous whisper "the gentleman is on the (here insert very ceremonial
*hand genture*) Gospel side..."
You raise your hand, palm toward your shoulder, elbow bent, and then
rooooollll your arm out and down, horizontal, at last... hand naturally
unfurling, palm upward, fingers gracefully arched, then unfolding like
the veriest tender green fern after a warm Spring rain, concluding with
the hand delicately, oh, so delicately, trembling *ever* so slightly, in
the direction of said gentleman! Think Swan Lake! Think Madame Olga
Ivanawfulitch en-pointe, tutu a-quiver as she extends her arm... *OVER
THERE YA IDJIT*! :D
Very High Church!
St. Fu Fu

[Timothy Lee]

As the "lead" usher at the Third Sunday Family Service at my Episcopal
parish, I have the duty of informing the servers at the rail of persons who
require communion to be served in their pews. I have alway felt that I
should say, e.g., "the elderly lady/gentleman on the epistle/gospel side
center aisle",,,, but when I get to the rail to deliver the message
invariably I forget which is epistle or gospel,,,, and then because the
server is facing me, I am not certain if he/she knows which side when I
refer to as the left side center aisle..... Such is the life of an
Episcopal usher.

Could you not use decani and cantoris, or North and South?

[FTT]

Post by Priscilla Ballou

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Steve Hayes
If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten tradition,
and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
irrecoverable.

This kind of thing is very rarely inexplicable: the Church is an
enormous multi-national organisation based meticulously on the written
word. May even be Googlable.
Good old OED1 says the Epistle is read at the south side, and the
Gospel at the north, but unfortunately doesn't say why.

Because the altar's at the east. It's not that the Epistle is
associated with the direction south, but it's to the right of the altar
as you look at it, and the altar's in the east end of the
traditionally-placed church. Mirror that for the Gospel.

We know about liturgical east; and of course liturgical south's on the
congregation's right. But the question was *why* south is the Epistle
side.
Mike.

As a convert to Anglicanism 50 years ago I was taught
that the Epistle is read from the South Side ---- as South = warmth.

The Epistle is written from one Christian Community to another
sharing the "warmth" of Faith in Christ.....

FTT

[Saint Fu Fu]

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Steve Hayes
If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten tradition,
and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
irrecoverable.

This kind of thing is very rarely inexplicable: the Church is an
enormous multi-national organisation based meticulously on the written
word. May even be Googlable.
Good old OED1 says the Epistle is read at the south side, and the
Gospel at the north, but unfortunately doesn't say why.
I have an oldish colour-plated book giving the Order of Service of
Holy Communion in very High-Church terms, with handy hints on what to
think at various key moments; but it doesn't explain the handedness of
these readings.
Mike.

Possible conjecture?

If the altar is at the East, the direction of the sunrise and
potentially the direction that Christ will come from when He returns,
the altar faces God. God is facing us in the West. Christ is at God's
right hand, the North side (Stage Right) and that is where His Word is
read. The Epistles are read from the opposite side, North (Stage Left)
as that's the only side remaining? Symmetry?)

The layout confirms this (fixed width font reveals a cruciform layout
here!)

God (above)
East
|
|
Christ (Right)-------------Holy Spirit (Left)
North | South
|
|
|
|
Church/Congregation (below)
West

I would bet that sitting on the right side of the church was reserved
for the more influential members of the congregation because it was
closer to the pulpit and on the "Christ" Gospel side while the Holy
Spirit Epistle side was more for the general congregants.

Sort of like the Port/Starboard layout of luxury ocean liners where one
side was a bit more desireable. It is said that the acronym "Posh"
stands for Port Out Starboard Home as a sign of wealth and where the
influential/wealthy passengers had their cabins. The Port side was
leeward on the way out of England's waters and the opposite on return.

St. Fu Fu

[Christopher Johnson]

Post by Saint Fu Fu
Sort of like the Port/Starboard layout of luxury ocean liners where one
side was a bit more desireable. It is said that the acronym "Posh"
stands for Port Out Starboard Home as a sign of wealth and where the
influential/wealthy passengers had their cabins. The Port side was
leeward on the way out of England's waters and the opposite on return.

It is also said, quite firmly, that that is false. For example, in our
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/ (search on "posh")
I've got a whole list of those bogus "acronym" etymologies, from "cabal"
to "wop."

[POSTED TO AUE ONLY]

Is there any 'acronym etymology' on your list, Donna,
which mentions RF at all?

[Charles Riggs]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:35:26 GMT, Christopher Johnson

Post by Christopher Johnson

Post by Saint Fu Fu
Sort of like the Port/Starboard layout of luxury ocean liners where one
side was a bit more desireable. It is said that the acronym "Posh"
stands for Port Out Starboard Home as a sign of wealth and where the
influential/wealthy passengers had their cabins. The Port side was
leeward on the way out of England's waters and the opposite on return.

It is also said, quite firmly, that that is false. For example, in our
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/ (search on "posh")
I've got a whole list of those bogus "acronym" etymologies, from "cabal"
to "wop."

[POSTED TO AUE ONLY]
Is there any 'acronym etymology' on your list, Donna,
which mentions RF at all?

For Fontana? Sure:

Fabricator Of Not-likely Tidbits About New Arrivals.

[Bob Cunningham]

Post by Saint Fu Fu
Sort of like the Port/Starboard layout of luxury ocean liners where one
side was a bit more desireable. It is said that the acronym "Posh"
stands for Port Out Starboard Home as a sign of wealth and where the
influential/wealthy passengers had their cabins. The Port side was
leeward on the way out of England's waters and the opposite on return.

It is also said, quite firmly, that that is false.

I think that statement is too emphatic. My understanding is
that no one has proven that it's true, and those who comment
authoritatively on these things have cast serious doubt on
its truth, but I don't think any authoritative source has
stated firmly that it's absolutely without any doubt
whatsoever false.

For everyday purposes, it seems reasonable to say that it is
almost surely false, so long as we keep our minds open to
the possibility that someone may yet prove it true.

http://www.alt-usage-english.org/ (search on "posh")

Better yet, go directly to
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxposhxx.html .

[John Varela]

Post by Bob Cunningham
I think that statement is too emphatic. My understanding is
that no one has proven that it's true, and those who comment
authoritatively on these things have cast serious doubt on
its truth, but I don't think any authoritative source has
stated firmly that it's absolutely without any doubt
whatsoever false.

When arguing by appeal to authority go to the experts:

http://www.urbanlegends.com/language/etymology/posh_etymology_of.html

[Bob Cunningham]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:59:44 GMT, "John Varela"

Post by John Varela

Post by Bob Cunningham
I think that statement is too emphatic. My understanding is
that no one has proven that it's true, and those who comment
authoritatively on these things have cast serious doubt on
its truth, but I don't think any authoritative source has
stated firmly that it's absolutely without any doubt
whatsoever false.

http://www.urbanlegends.com/language/etymology/posh_etymology_of.html

I'm not convinced that they're experts. They say

The acronym is said to explain the right
placement of one's stateroom for being on the
shady or the lee side of the ship. On the
east-west passage it is true, the ship being
north of the sun, that the acronym will locate
the shady side (though time of year will make
a substantial difference). The lee side,
however, is determined by the monsoon winds,
and since they blow into the Asian heartland
all summer and out all winter, only the season
can determine which side will be sheltered.

If there were anything to the highly suspect popular
etymology of "POSH", I believe it would have to do only with
the direction of the Sun and the resulting shade. If you're
inside your stateroom with the door and the portholes
closed, it should matter little whether or not the wind is
blowing more on your side of the ship than on the other
side. The stateroom gets hotter if the Sun is beating on
the outside wall. Wind should have little or nothing to do
with the stateroom temperature.

I've read explanations of the dubious etymology of "POSH".
This is the first time I've seen wind mentioned. I think
it's an error to mention it as part of the reason for
preferring one side of the ship over the other.

If I had to choose a side of the ship independently of
consideration of the Sun's direction, I would pick the
windward side, expecting that it would give me the option to
open a porthole -- or maybe a door -- and get some of the
breeze inside.

[John Varela]

FOLLOW-UPS

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:59:44 GMT, "John Varela"

Post by John Varela

Post by Bob Cunningham
I think that statement is too emphatic. My understanding is
that no one has proven that it's true, and those who comment
authoritatively on these things have cast serious doubt on
its truth, but I don't think any authoritative source has
stated firmly that it's absolutely without any doubt
whatsoever false.

http://www.urbanlegends.com/language/etymology/posh_etymology_of.html

I'm not convinced that they're experts. They say
The acronym is said to explain the right
placement of one's stateroom for being on the
shady or the lee side of the ship. On the
east-west passage it is true, the ship being
north of the sun, that the acronym will locate
the shady side (though time of year will make
a substantial difference). The lee side,
however, is determined by the monsoon winds,
and since they blow into the Asian heartland
all summer and out all winter, only the season
can determine which side will be sheltered.

You clipped the quotation. It continues:

The earlier dating of 'posh' as glossed above sufficently refutes
the ingenious (but too late) acronymic invention. And as a clincher,
veterans of the Peninsula and Eastern, questioned about the term,
replied that they had never heard it in the acronymic sense. ---

The dating referenced is to the seventeenth century, in a quotation from the
great John Ciardi.

Post by Bob Cunningham
If there were anything to the highly suspect popular
etymology of "POSH", I believe it would have to do only with
the direction of the Sun and the resulting shade. If you're
inside your stateroom with the door and the portholes
closed, it should matter little whether or not the wind is
blowing more on your side of the ship than on the other
side. The stateroom gets hotter if the Sun is beating on
the outside wall. Wind should have little or nothing to do
with the stateroom temperature.

But why would you close the doors and portholes in an un-air-conditioned ship
in the tropics? And you're ignoring the mention of the monsoon, when the sun
don't shine.

Post by Bob Cunningham
I've read explanations of the dubious etymology of "POSH".
This is the first time I've seen wind mentioned. I think
it's an error to mention it as part of the reason for
preferring one side of the ship over the other.
If I had to choose a side of the ship independently of
consideration of the Sun's direction, I would pick the
windward side, expecting that it would give me the option to
open a porthole -- or maybe a door -- and get some of the
breeze inside.

Precisely.

[Louis]

Post by Saint Fu Fu

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Steve Hayes
If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten tradition,
and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
irrecoverable.

This kind of thing is very rarely inexplicable: the Church is an
enormous multi-national organisation based meticulously on the written
word. May even be Googlable.
Good old OED1 says the Epistle is read at the south side, and the
Gospel at the north, but unfortunately doesn't say why.
I have an oldish colour-plated book giving the Order of Service of
Holy Communion in very High-Church terms, with handy hints on what to
think at various key moments; but it doesn't explain the handedness of
these readings.
Mike.

Possible conjecture?
If the altar is at the East, the direction of the sunrise and
potentially the direction that Christ will come from when He returns,
the altar faces God. God is facing us in the West. Christ is at God's
right hand, the North side (Stage Right) and that is where His Word is
read. The Epistles are read from the opposite side, North (Stage Left)
as that's the only side remaining? Symmetry?)
The layout confirms this (fixed width font reveals a cruciform layout
here!)
God (above)
East
|
|
Christ (Right)-------------Holy Spirit (Left)
North | South
|
|
|
|
Church/Congregation (below)
West
I would bet that sitting on the right side of the church was reserved
for the more influential members of the congregation because it was
closer to the pulpit and on the "Christ" Gospel side while the Holy
Spirit Epistle side was more for the general congregants.
Sort of like the Port/Starboard layout of luxury ocean liners where one
side was a bit more desireable. It is said that the acronym "Posh"
stands for Port Out Starboard Home as a sign of wealth and where the
influential/wealthy passengers had their cabins. The Port side was
leeward on the way out of England's waters and the opposite on return.
St. Fu Fu

What direction does the urinal face?

L

[Robert Coates]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Saint Fu Fu

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Steve Hayes
If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it

might

Post by Saint Fu Fu

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Steve Hayes
explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten

tradition,

Post by Saint Fu Fu

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Steve Hayes
and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
irrecoverable.

This kind of thing is very rarely inexplicable: the Church is an
enormous multi-national organisation based meticulously on the written
word. May even be Googlable.
Good old OED1 says the Epistle is read at the south side, and the
Gospel at the north, but unfortunately doesn't say why.
I have an oldish colour-plated book giving the Order of Service of
Holy Communion in very High-Church terms, with handy hints on what to
think at various key moments; but it doesn't explain the handedness of
these readings.
Mike.

Possible conjecture?
If the altar is at the East, the direction of the sunrise and
potentially the direction that Christ will come from when He returns,
the altar faces God. God is facing us in the West. Christ is at God's
right hand, the North side (Stage Right) and that is where His Word is
read. The Epistles are read from the opposite side, North (Stage Left)
as that's the only side remaining? Symmetry?)
The layout confirms this (fixed width font reveals a cruciform layout
here!)
God (above)
East
|
|
Christ (Right)-------------Holy Spirit (Left)
North | South
|
|
|
|
Church/Congregation (below)
West
I would bet that sitting on the right side of the church was reserved
for the more influential members of the congregation because it was
closer to the pulpit and on the "Christ" Gospel side while the Holy
Spirit Epistle side was more for the general congregants.
Sort of like the Port/Starboard layout of luxury ocean liners where one
side was a bit more desireable. It is said that the acronym "Posh"
stands for Port Out Starboard Home as a sign of wealth and where the
influential/wealthy passengers had their cabins. The Port side was
leeward on the way out of England's waters and the opposite on return.
St. Fu Fu

What direction does the urinal face?
L

Interestingly, in mosque design, this is a very serious consideration.
Muslims consider it a grave offense to urinate or evacuate facing Mecca.
Therefore all urinals and toilets must be oriented (unavoidable pun) on a
north-south axis. Urinals in any event are rare in mosques; very orthodox
Muslims--for some esoteric reason which I forgot--also consider it a ritual
infraction to urinate standing.

I hope everyone found this interesting -- or not.

Bob

[Mike Lyle]

"Robert Coates" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<l3d3b.217193$***@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
[...]

Post by Robert Coates
Urinals in any event are rare in mosques; very orthodox
Muslims--for some esoteric reason which I forgot--also consider it a ritual
infraction to urinate standing.

[...]

I believe there are conflicting hadith on the subject, but that the
one which says the Prophet did sometimes urinate standing is taken to
be less authoritative. The idea, I believe, is simply to minimize
exposure: you have to haul up a lot of cloth to pee standing when
wearing traditional Arab dress, and it would look rather gross.

Mike.

[Bob Cunningham]

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Robert Coates
Urinals in any event are rare in mosques; very orthodox
Muslims--for some esoteric reason which I forgot--also consider it a ritual
infraction to urinate standing.

[...]
I believe there are conflicting hadith on the subject, but that the
one which says the Prophet did sometimes urinate standing is taken to
be less authoritative. The idea, I believe, is simply to minimize
exposure: you have to haul up a lot of cloth to pee standing when
wearing traditional Arab dress, and it would look rather gross.

The above remarks have been crossposted to the following
newsgroups:

alt.usage.english
alt.religion.christian.episcopal
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox

While readers of those groups will undoubtedly be interested
in whether or not the Prophet of Islam peed standing up, and
the inconvenience he may have experienced in trying to do
so, I should think the folks at alt.religion.islam may be
even more interested.

[Mike Lyle]

Post by Bob Cunningham

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Robert Coates
Urinals in any event are rare in mosques; very orthodox
Muslims--for some esoteric reason which I forgot--also consider it a ritual
infraction to urinate standing.

[...]
I believe there are conflicting hadith on the subject, but that the
one which says the Prophet did sometimes urinate standing is taken to
be less authoritative. The idea, I believe, is simply to minimize
exposure: you have to haul up a lot of cloth to pee standing when
wearing traditional Arab dress, and it would look rather gross.

The above remarks have been crossposted to the following
alt.usage.english
alt.religion.christian.episcopal
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
While readers of those groups will undoubtedly be interested
in whether or not the Prophet of Islam peed standing up, and
the inconvenience he may have experienced in trying to do
so, I should think the folks at alt.religion.islam may be
even more interested.

Is that a rebuke, Bob? I left the "Send to" list untouched, as that's
the way the thing reached me, and didn't see any good reason for
removing any of the groups. I wouldn't presume to tell
alt.religion.islam what they must certainly know more about than I do.

I'm not an habitual cross-poster, and if an apology is needed, you all
have it, necessarily via this cross-posting.

Mike.

[Bob Cunningham]

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Bob Cunningham

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Robert Coates
Urinals in any event are rare in mosques; very orthodox
Muslims--for some esoteric reason which I forgot--also consider it a ritual
infraction to urinate standing.

[...]
I believe there are conflicting hadith on the subject, but that the
one which says the Prophet did sometimes urinate standing is taken to
be less authoritative. The idea, I believe, is simply to minimize
exposure: you have to haul up a lot of cloth to pee standing when
wearing traditional Arab dress, and it would look rather gross.

The above remarks have been crossposted to the following
alt.usage.english
alt.religion.christian.episcopal
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
While readers of those groups will undoubtedly be interested
in whether or not the Prophet of Islam peed standing up, and
the inconvenience he may have experienced in trying to do
so, I should think the folks at alt.religion.islam may be
even more interested.

Is that a rebuke, Bob?

Nah, just a playful nudge. I know that things like that
happen in all innocence. I've crossposted inadvertently
many times. I just thought it was sorta amusing that we
were crossposting to religious groups comments on the
urinary posture of the Prophet of Islam.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Bob Cunningham

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Bob Cunningham
The above remarks have been crossposted to the following
alt.usage.english
alt.religion.christian.episcopal
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
While readers of those groups will undoubtedly be interested
in whether or not the Prophet of Islam peed standing up, and
the inconvenience he may have experienced in trying to do
so, I should think the folks at alt.religion.islam may be
even more interested.

Is that a rebuke, Bob?

Nah, just a playful nudge. I know that things like that
happen in all innocence. I've crossposted inadvertently
many times. I just thought it was sorta amusing that we
were crossposting to religious groups comments on the
urinary posture of the Prophet of Islam.

It happens with thread drift - something cross-posted may originally be
relevant to all the groups it is posted in, and then a sub-thread (like the
"posh" one) ceases to be relevant in some of the groups. It's easily fixed.

[ follow-ups set ]

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Bob Cunningham

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Robert Coates
Urinals in any event are rare in mosques; very orthodox
Muslims--for some esoteric reason which I forgot--also consider it a ritual
infraction to urinate standing.

[...]
I believe there are conflicting hadith on the subject, but that the
one which says the Prophet did sometimes urinate standing is taken to
be less authoritative. The idea, I believe, is simply to minimize
exposure: you have to haul up a lot of cloth to pee standing when
wearing traditional Arab dress, and it would look rather gross.

The above remarks have been crossposted to the following
alt.usage.english
alt.religion.christian.episcopal
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
While readers of those groups will undoubtedly be interested
in whether or not the Prophet of Islam peed standing up, and
the inconvenience he may have experienced in trying to do
so, I should think the folks at alt.religion.islam may be
even more interested.

It seems that this particular sub-thread was introduced by a fellow called
Louis.

Perhaps he should have changed the subject line and set follow-ups
accordingly.

[Dana Prescott]

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Robert Coates
Urinals in any event are rare in mosques; very orthodox
Muslims--for some esoteric reason which I forgot--also consider it a
ritual infraction to urinate standing.

[...]
I believe there are conflicting hadith on the subject, but that the
one which says the Prophet did sometimes urinate standing is taken to
be less authoritative. The idea, I believe, is simply to minimize
exposure: you have to haul up a lot of cloth to pee standing when
wearing traditional Arab dress, and it would look rather gross.

I believe there's also an element about "Imitation of the Prophet" as
a spiritual practice, comparable to the philosophy espoused in St.
Thomas a Kempis' "Imitation of Christ". You become "like" a holy man
by imitating what the holy man did. So if the Prophet blew his nose a
certain way, you're also supposed to blow your nose in the same way,
simply because the Prophet did it that way. It's rather arbitrary, to
say the least.

Actually, at our university, Moslem guys pee at the open urinals just
like everybody else. Of course they're wearing western clothes, not
robes, but I
haven't ever seen a guy take out a compass to figure out whether he's
"peeing toward Mecca" either. And in India, guys of all faiths pee
openly outdoors just about any place they please, as you'll know if
you've travelled there. I must say, if my religion required me to pee
squatting rather than standing, and frowned on the installation of
urinals, I'd certainly give serious thought to having a religious
conversion. In any case, I can't imagine that God gives a flying flush
if guys pee standing up. It's clearly a cultural and a practical "male
plumbing" perk, and (if you please) the enjoyment of one of our
"special anatomical gifts". It's not even remotely a theological
issue.

"Offensive subject matter"? Hey, not nearly as offensive as the
spiteful fag-bashing that's been taking place around here since GC. At
least this topic is culturally didactic!

[Gary]

Post by Dana Prescott

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Robert Coates
Urinals in any event are rare in mosques; very orthodox
Muslims--for some esoteric reason which I forgot--also consider it a
ritual infraction to urinate standing.

[...]
I believe there are conflicting hadith on the subject, but that the
one which says the Prophet did sometimes urinate standing is taken to
be less authoritative. The idea, I believe, is simply to minimize
exposure: you have to haul up a lot of cloth to pee standing when
wearing traditional Arab dress, and it would look rather gross.

I believe there's also an element about "Imitation of the Prophet" as
a spiritual practice, comparable to the philosophy espoused in St.
Thomas a Kempis' "Imitation of Christ". You become "like" a holy man
by imitating what the holy man did. So if the Prophet blew his nose a
certain way, you're also supposed to blow your nose in the same way,
simply because the Prophet did it that way. It's rather arbitrary, to
say the least.
Actually, at our university, Moslem guys pee at the open urinals just
like everybody else. Of course they're wearing western clothes, not
robes, but I
haven't ever seen a guy take out a compass to figure out whether he's
"peeing toward Mecca" either. And in India, guys of all faiths pee
openly outdoors just about any place they please, as you'll know if
you've travelled there. I must say, if my religion required me to pee
squatting rather than standing, and frowned on the installation of
urinals, I'd certainly give serious thought to having a religious
conversion. In any case, I can't imagine that God gives a flying flush
if guys pee standing up. It's clearly a cultural and a practical "male
plumbing" perk, and (if you please) the enjoyment of one of our
"special anatomical gifts". It's not even remotely a theological
issue.
"Offensive subject matter"? Hey, not nearly as offensive as the
spiteful fag-bashing that's been taking place around here since GC. At
least this topic is culturally didactic!

Can Muslims write "Allah's" name in the snow with their "special anatomical gifts" (facing away from Mecca of course)?




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[CyberCypher]

***@yahoo.com (Dana Prescott) burbled news:***@posting.google.com:

[...]

Post by Dana Prescott
I must say, if my religion
required me to pee squatting rather than standing, and frowned on
the installation of urinals, I'd certainly give serious thought to
having a religious conversion. In any case, I can't imagine that
God gives a flying flush if guys pee standing up. It's clearly a
cultural and a practical "male plumbing" perk, and (if you please)
the enjoyment of one of our "special anatomical gifts". It's not
even remotely a theological issue.

It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk" but
about a lack of female imagination. See the following to find out
how women are essentially equally endowed to pee standing up:

http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html

You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.

[Ross Howard]

Post by CyberCypher
[...]

Post by Dana Prescott
I must say, if my religion
required me to pee squatting rather than standing, and frowned on
the installation of urinals, I'd certainly give serious thought to
having a religious conversion. In any case, I can't imagine that
God gives a flying flush if guys pee standing up. It's clearly a
cultural and a practical "male plumbing" perk, and (if you please)
the enjoyment of one of our "special anatomical gifts". It's not
even remotely a theological issue.

It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk" but
about a lack of female imagination. See the following to find out
http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.

One of the more colourful aspects of the popular culture of the
*barrio* I live in (Sacromonte, the gypsy quarter of Grranada) is that
it used to be -- and still is, at least in theory -- socially
acceptable for women to stop in the street, set their feet wide apart,
hoist their flouncy skirts up to their knees and just, er, go with the
flow. (One assumes that, like Scotsmen, they weren't big fans of
Calvin Klein.)

Sadly, only one of my *vecinas*, a very-very-ancient-indeed lady,
still keeps this fine practice alive -- probably because she's the
only one who has not given up on the raditional flouncy skirts and
opted for the now-ubiquitous fuchsia-flannel-tracksuit look.

***********
Ross Howard

[Mike Lyle]

Post by Ross Howard

Post by CyberCypher
[...]

Post by Dana Prescott
I must say, if my religion
required me to pee squatting rather than standing, and frowned on
the installation of urinals, I'd certainly give serious thought to
having a religious conversion. In any case, I can't imagine that
God gives a flying flush if guys pee standing up. It's clearly a
cultural and a practical "male plumbing" perk, and (if you please)
the enjoyment of one of our "special anatomical gifts". It's not
even remotely a theological issue.

It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk" but
about a lack of female imagination. See the following to find out
http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.

One of the more colourful aspects of the popular culture of the
*barrio* I live in (Sacromonte, the gypsy quarter of Grranada) is that
it used to be -- and still is, at least in theory -- socially
acceptable for women to stop in the street, set their feet wide apart,
hoist their flouncy skirts up to their knees and just, er, go with the
flow. (One assumes that, like Scotsmen, they weren't big fans of
Calvin Klein.)
Sadly, only one of my *vecinas*, a very-very-ancient-indeed lady,
still keeps this fine practice alive -- probably because she's the
only one who has not given up on the raditional flouncy skirts and
opted for the now-ubiquitous fuchsia-flannel-tracksuit look.

Attagirl!

But in response to Franke, above, no, of course it isn't theological.
As I think I said, if you're wearing a long shirt or sarong-thing
rather than trousers, and in a culture which calls for modesty in the
matter of exposed flesh, it's much more sensible to squat.

Mike.

[CyberCypher]

***@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) burbled news:***@posting.google.com:

[...]

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by CyberCypher
[...]

Post by Dana Prescott
I must say, if my religion
required me to pee squatting rather than standing, and frowned
on the installation of urinals, I'd certainly give serious
thought to having a religious conversion. In any case, I can't
imagine that God gives a flying flush if guys pee standing up.
It's clearly a cultural and a practical "male plumbing" perk,
and (if you please) the enjoyment of one of our "special
anatomical gifts". It's not even remotely a theological issue.

It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk"
but about a lack of female imagination. See the following to
find out how women are essentially equally endowed to pee
http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.

[...]

Post by Mike Lyle
But in response to Franke, above, no, of course it isn't
theological. As I think I said, if you're wearing a long shirt or
sarong-thing rather than trousers, and in a culture which calls
for modesty in the matter of exposed flesh, it's much more
sensible to squat.

Unless you're posing for a pornopic.

If you want to keep the area around the toilet seat urine-free, it
is also more sensible to sit down when you pee. (Who was that
comedienne with the line about guys being happy when they hit
anything?) And if you have a serious problem with an enlagred
prostate, sitting down may be the difference between fatigue and
having a good rest of the day. I forget why the bad guy (was it
Jean-Claude Van Damme?) in _The Long Kiss Goodnight_ said he sat
down to pee, but I do remember that Charlie Baltimore was mighty
impressed with it.

[Ross Howard]

Post by CyberCypher
[...]

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by CyberCypher
[...]

Post by Dana Prescott
I must say, if my religion
required me to pee squatting rather than standing, and frowned
on the installation of urinals, I'd certainly give serious
thought to having a religious conversion. In any case, I can't
imagine that God gives a flying flush if guys pee standing up.
It's clearly a cultural and a practical "male plumbing" perk,
and (if you please) the enjoyment of one of our "special
anatomical gifts". It's not even remotely a theological issue.

It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk"
but about a lack of female imagination. See the following to
find out how women are essentially equally endowed to pee
http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.

[...]

Post by Mike Lyle
But in response to Franke, above, no, of course it isn't
theological. As I think I said, if you're wearing a long shirt or
sarong-thing rather than trousers, and in a culture which calls
for modesty in the matter of exposed flesh, it's much more
sensible to squat.

Unless you're posing for a pornopic.
If you want to keep the area around the toilet seat urine-free, it
is also more sensible to sit down when you pee. (Who was that
comedienne with the line about guys being happy when they hit
anything?) And if you have a serious problem with an enlagred
prostate, sitting down may be the difference between fatigue and
having a good rest of the day. I forget why the bad guy (was it
Jean-Claude Van Damme?) in _The Long Kiss Goodnight_ said he sat
down to pee, but I do remember that Charlie Baltimore was mighty
impressed with it.

A German guy of my acquaintance once pointed out that the famous male
"shake everythang you got" routine before tucking todger back in
trousers is a bit medieval in non-public-urinal situations, since a
quick wipe of glans with a piece of toilet paper removes the residual
drips more effectively and less messily.

Vorsprung durch technik, innit.

***********
Ross Howard

[CyberCypher]

Post by Ross Howard

Post by CyberCypher
[...]

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by CyberCypher
[...]

Post by Dana Prescott
I must say, if my religion
required me to pee squatting rather than standing, and
frowned on the installation of urinals, I'd certainly give
serious thought to having a religious conversion. In any
case, I can't imagine that God gives a flying flush if guys
pee standing up. It's clearly a cultural and a practical
"male plumbing" perk, and (if you please) the enjoyment of
one of our "special anatomical gifts". It's not even
remotely a theological issue.

It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing'
perk" but about a lack of female imagination. See the
following to find out how women are essentially equally
http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.

[...]

Post by Mike Lyle
But in response to Franke, above, no, of course it isn't
theological. As I think I said, if you're wearing a long shirt
or sarong-thing rather than trousers, and in a culture which
calls for modesty in the matter of exposed flesh, it's much more
sensible to squat.

Unless you're posing for a pornopic.
If you want to keep the area around the toilet seat urine-free, it
is also more sensible to sit down when you pee. (Who was that
comedienne with the line about guys being happy when they hit
anything?) And if you have a serious problem with an enlagred
prostate, sitting down may be the difference between fatigue and
having a good rest of the day. I forget why the bad guy (was it
Jean-Claude Van Damme?) in _The Long Kiss Goodnight_ said he sat
down to pee, but I do remember that Charlie Baltimore was mighty
impressed with it.

A German guy of my acquaintance once pointed out that the famous
male "shake everythang you got" routine before tucking todger back
in trousers is a bit medieval in non-public-urinal situations,
since a quick wipe of glans with a piece of toilet paper removes
the residual drips more effectively and less messily.
Vorsprung durch technik, innit.

This seems to be a necessity for guys who are not circumsized. I've
noticed that when my 7-year-old doesn't do that, he wets his pants
just a tad in front. He doesn't seem to get the point, though. But
his shorts do.

[Reinhold (Rey) Aman]

[...]

Post by CyberCypher

Post by Ross Howard
A German guy of my acquaintance once pointed out that the famous
male "shake everythang you got" routine before tucking todger back
in trousers is a bit medieval in non-public-urinal situations,
since a quick wipe of glans with a piece of toilet paper removes
the residual drips more effectively and less messily.
Vorsprung durch technik, innit.

This seems to be a necessity for guys who are not circumsized. I've
noticed that when my 7-year-old doesn't do that, he wets his pants
just a tad in front. He doesn't seem to get the point, though. But
his shorts do.

To avoid that -- unless your boy is afflicted with phimosis (which can
easily be fixed) -- tell him to pull his foreskin back beyond the
glans before peeing.

BTW, has anyone heard these rhymes or variants thereof?

Heard from a Wisconsin woman:
No matter how you prance and dance,
The last few drops run down your pants.

Heard from a man:
No matter how you shake your peg,
The last few drops run down your leg.

[CyberCypher]

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]

Post by CyberCypher

Post by Ross Howard
A German guy of my acquaintance once pointed out that the
famous male "shake everythang you got" routine before tucking
todger back in trousers is a bit medieval in non-public-urinal
situations, since a quick wipe of glans with a piece of toilet
paper removes the residual drips more effectively and less
messily.
Vorsprung durch technik, innit.

This seems to be a necessity for guys who are not circumsized.
I've noticed that when my 7-year-old doesn't do that, he wets his
pants just a tad in front. He doesn't seem to get the point,
though. But his shorts do.

To avoid that -- unless your boy is afflicted with phimosis (which
can easily be fixed) -- tell him to pull his foreskin back beyond
the glans before peeing.

Sounds like a good idea. Thank you. I'll tell him.

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman
BTW, has anyone heard these rhymes or variants thereof?
No matter how you prance and dance,
The last few drops run down your pants.

I've heard a variant of this one:

The last drop always runs down your pants.

[Paul Esposito]

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]

Post by CyberCypher

Post by Ross Howard
A German guy of my acquaintance once pointed out that the famous
male "shake everythang you got" routine before tucking todger back
in trousers is a bit medieval in non-public-urinal situations,
since a quick wipe of glans with a piece of toilet paper removes
the residual drips more effectively and less messily.
Vorsprung durch technik, innit.

This seems to be a necessity for guys who are not circumsized. I've
noticed that when my 7-year-old doesn't do that, he wets his pants
just a tad in front. He doesn't seem to get the point, though. But
his shorts do.

To avoid that -- unless your boy is afflicted with phimosis (which can
easily be fixed) -- tell him to pull his foreskin back beyond the
glans before peeing.
BTW, has anyone heard these rhymes or variants thereof?
No matter how you prance and dance,
The last few drops run down your pants.
No matter how you shake your peg,
The last few drops run down your leg.

I don't think it has anything to do with the foreskin. Urine is
trapped temporarily in the urethra, necessitating a further act of
digital peristalsis to release it. My ten-year-old still hasn't
mastered it (or maybe he doesn't care). I always encourage him to sit
as his aim is also rather poor.

PE

[Skitt]

Post by Paul Esposito
I don't think it has anything to do with the foreskin. Urine is
trapped temporarily in the urethra, necessitating a further act of
digital peristalsis to release it. My ten-year-old still hasn't
mastered it (or maybe he doesn't care). I always encourage him to sit
as his aim is also rather poor.

I think you've got it.

[Reinhold (Rey) Aman]

[...]

Post by Paul Esposito

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman

Post by CyberCypher
This seems to be a necessity for guys who are not circumsized. I've
noticed that when my 7-year-old doesn't do that, he wets his pants
just a tad in front. He doesn't seem to get the point, though. But
his shorts do.

To avoid that -- unless your boy is afflicted with phimosis (which
can easily be fixed) -- tell him to pull his foreskin back beyond
the glans before peeing.

[...]

Post by Paul Esposito
I don't think it has anything to do with the foreskin. Urine is
trapped temporarily in the urethra, necessitating a further act of
digital peristalsis to release it. My ten-year-old still hasn't
mastered it (or maybe he doesn't care). I always encourage him to
sit as his aim is also rather poor.

Urinating while sitting does not solve the problem, because it's
mainly the glans-covering foreskin of a flaccid penis -- if not pulled
back -- that traps urine.

I agree with the temporarily trapped urine you point out, but I also
insist that my advice about pulling back the foreskin is sound. Of
the 67 years I've been urinating, some 64 years I've done so without
the help of others and have observed what's happening, urine-wise.

Foreskins come in various lengths, ranging from the extra-long
stylized ones seen in Ancient Greek paintings and on pottery to
"normal" ones. When one urinates with a flaccid penis -- that is,
without having an erection (including sporting a "morning pride,"
"pride of the morning," "water hard-on," "piss-hard-on," etc.) -- the
foreskin extends about 1/4" (6.35 mm) beyond the end of the glans and
its meatus [hole].

If the foreskin is *not* pulled back to at least the first quarter of
the glans, in order to uncover and expose the hole, some urine
collects in the inside folds of the foreskin of a flaccid penis during
urination. Certainly, most of this trapped liquid -- about 0.10 cc --
can be shaken out; however, the *inside* of the foreskin is still wet
from the urine, and that moisture is what ends up in your pants, in
addition to any urine not expelled by digital {Hi, Sara!} peristalsis
of the urethra.

Tomorrow, Part II:
"Why women use so incredibly much toilet paper."

ObEthnicSlur:
How do Polish mothers tell their kids how to put on underpants?
-- "Yellow goes in front, brown in the back."

[Paul Esposito]

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman
I agree with the temporarily trapped urine you point out, but I also
insist that my advice about pulling back the foreskin is sound. Of
the 67 years I've been urinating, some 64 years I've done so without
the help of others and have observed what's happening, urine-wise.

Pulling back the foreskin is advisable on hygiene grounds for those
who are uncircumsised, as the glans is especially sensitive. Failure
to do so (and to dry adequately) can discourage good cleaning
practices. So I would agree for different reasons (though you may well
be right about the volume of urine trapped under there).

PE

[R H Draney]

Post by Paul Esposito

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman
I agree with the temporarily trapped urine you point out, but I also
insist that my advice about pulling back the foreskin is sound. Of
the 67 years I've been urinating, some 64 years I've done so without
the help of others and have observed what's happening, urine-wise.

Pulling back the foreskin is advisable on hygiene grounds for those
who are uncircumsised, as the glans is especially sensitive. Failure
to do so (and to dry adequately) can discourage good cleaning
practices. So I would agree for different reasons (though you may well
be right about the volume of urine trapped under there).

This is deeply strange to me...I can put myself in the place of a person of a
different gender, a different race, a different size or age, or of a different
historical period...I can imagine what it feels like to be an animal with
monochromatic vision, compound eyes, eyes sensitive to the infrared, or no
vision at all, or how it feels to move as a snake with no external limbs or as a
lobster with ten pairs of different-functioned and independently-mobile ones....

But for some reason I can't get inside the thoughts of someone of my own
species, gender and approximate age who hasn't been circumcised...weird....r

[Reinhold (Rey) Aman]

R H Draney wrote:

[...]

I can't get inside the thoughts of someone of my own species, gender
and approximate age who hasn't been circumcised...weird....r

Well, you're another victim of America's hyper-hygienic obsession and
especially of the conspiracy by greedy doctors who happily snip away
at $500 (?) per prepuce. (I excuse circumcision for religious or
medical reasons.)

A glans without the protection of a foreskin is as sensitive as a
leathery doorknob.

[R H Draney]

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman

I can't get inside the thoughts of someone of my own species, gender
and approximate age who hasn't been circumcised...weird....r

Well, you're another victim of America's hyper-hygienic obsession and
especially of the conspiracy by greedy doctors who happily snip away
at $500 (?) per prepuce. (I excuse circumcision for religious or
medical reasons.)

I was divested of mine so early in life that I have no memory whatsoever of
having had it...unlike some extremists, I've never had the feeling in the
intervening 44 years that anything was "missing"....r

[Schultz]

Post by R H Draney
I was divested of mine so early in life that I have no memory whatsoever of
having had it...unlike some extremists, I've never had the feeling in the
intervening 44 years that anything was "missing"....r

That's funny. With politics it's the exact opposite. It's the extremists
who don't sense they have anything missing (scruples, morals, etc.).

\\P. Schultz

[Reinhold (Rey) Aman]

Sorry, I don't filt in public. It's against my principles. So this
reply is not gefilt.

Post by R H Draney

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman

I can't get inside the thoughts of someone of my own species, gender
and approximate age who hasn't been circumcised...weird....r

Well, you're another victim of America's hyper-hygienic obsession and
especially of the conspiracy by greedy doctors who happily snip away
at $500 (?) per prepuce. (I excuse circumcision for religious or
medical reasons.)

I was divested of mine so early in life that I have no memory whatsoever
of having had it...unlike some extremists, I've never had the feeling in
the intervening 44 years that anything was "missing"....r

Perhaps not, but you can't imagine what you're missing....

[R H Draney]

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Sorry, I don't filt in public. It's against my principles. So this
reply is not gefilt.

I like the word...it came, inflected no less, straight from my random word
generator when I asked for an opening-quote line made from utter gibberish...I
posted using the full version a couple of times and retained this vestige for
the time being....

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman

Post by R H Draney

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman

I can't get inside the thoughts of someone of my own species, gender
and approximate age who hasn't been circumcised...weird....r

Well, you're another victim of America's hyper-hygienic obsession and
especially of the conspiracy by greedy doctors who happily snip away
at $500 (?) per prepuce. (I excuse circumcision for religious or
medical reasons.)

I was divested of mine so early in life that I have no memory whatsoever
of having had it...unlike some extremists, I've never had the feeling in
the intervening 44 years that anything was "missing"....r

Perhaps not, but you can't imagine what you're missing....

That, in a nutshell, was the point of my original post....r

[Charles Riggs]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 21:54:34 GMT, "Reinhold (Rey) Aman"

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]

I can't get inside the thoughts of someone of my own species, gender
and approximate age who hasn't been circumcised...weird....r

Well, you're another victim of America's hyper-hygienic obsession and
especially of the conspiracy by greedy doctors who happily snip away
at $500 (?) per prepuce. (I excuse circumcision for religious or
medical reasons.)
A glans without the protection of a foreskin is as sensitive as a
leathery doorknob.

Did Issac Stern wear gloves when he played the violin? Not only are
foreskins about as ugly as shit on a stick, they serve no useful
purpose. Thank God the damn things don't grow back.

[Simon R. Hughes]

Post by Charles Riggs
Not only are
foreskins about as ugly as shit on a stick, they serve no useful
purpose. Thank God the damn things don't grow back.

I have endured as much of this as I can silently.

=====
The foreskin has twelve known functions.
They are:
1. to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the
development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner
foreskin.
2. to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
3. to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion thoughout
life.
4. to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
5. to lubricate the glans.
6. to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
7. to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
8. to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
9. to serve as an aid to penetration.
10. to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
11. to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of
erogenous receptors.
12. to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner.

=====

<http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/>

Just to rub it in:

"Although still pleasurable for the man, intercourse without
the participation of the prepuce lacks the gliding mechanism.
The only source of stimulation is the glans rubbing against the
wall of the vagina. The sensations from the specialised
receptors of the frenar band, frenulum and inner foreskin layer
are missing."

And further down:

"If the surgery was performed on an infant, by adulthood a
relatively thick keratin layer will have formed on the normally
skinless mucosal surface of the glans, which further reduces
the stimulation. If the circumcision was performed as an adult,
the keratin layer will form, and the sensitivity of the glans
will gradually be reduced over time."

I think you should all stop extolling the virtues of genital
mutilation; each of you so engineered is missing more than just a
prepuce.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Simon R. Hughes <***@yahoo.no> writes:

[quoting]

Post by Simon R. Hughes
The foreskin has twelve known functions.
2. to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.

I can go with "benefit", but it seems a stretch to call this a
"function". It's like saying that one of the functions of external
ears is to keep eyeglasses from falling off. It's in the realm of
"functionality", not "function".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If you think health care is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free.
| P.J. O'Rourke
***@hpl.hp.com
[phone]

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Simon R. Hughes]

Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
[quoting]

Post by Simon R. Hughes
The foreskin has twelve known functions.
2. to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.

I can go with "benefit", but it seems a stretch to call this a
"function". It's like saying that one of the functions of external
ears is to keep eyeglasses from falling off. It's in the realm of
"functionality", not "function".

I was thinking of commenting that. There are a number of other
things on the page I quoted that could have been commented on.

[Reinhold (Rey) Aman]

Post by Charles Riggs

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]

I can't get inside the thoughts of someone of my own species, gender
and approximate age who hasn't been circumcised...weird....r

Well, you're another victim of America's hyper-hygienic obsession and
especially of the conspiracy by greedy doctors who happily snip away
at $500 (?) per prepuce. (I excuse circumcision for religious or
medical reasons.)
A glans without the protection of a foreskin is as sensitive as a
leathery doorknob.

Did Issac Stern wear gloves when he played the violin? Not only
are foreskins about as ugly as shit on a stick, they serve no
useful purpose. Thank God the damn things don't grow back.

Ach, Karl, my good & cut buddy, you're like an eyeless man who's
discussing the differences between Manet and Monet. 'Nuff said.

[James Follett]

X-No-Archive: yes

Post by R H Draney
But for some reason I can't get inside the thoughts of someone of my own
species, gender and approximate age who hasn't been circumcised...weird....r

Disgusting even; I shudder at the mere mention of a "foreskin". Who'd
want to hide their light under a bush, anyway?

If mine glowed I wouldn't dare show it to any bush. Women seem to find
male genitals funny enough as it is.

[Mike Lyle]

***@hotmail.com (Paul Esposito) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
[...]

Post by Paul Esposito
I don't think it has anything to do with the foreskin. Urine is
trapped temporarily in the urethra, necessitating a further act of
digital peristalsis to release it. My ten-year-old still hasn't
mastered it (or maybe he doesn't care). I always encourage him to sit
as his aim is also rather poor.

None of my business, Paul, but if you were family I'd say don't do
that. Some little shit at school is bound to notice and he'll catch
hell from the bastards.

You know those things you hang in the loo to dish out quantities of
deodoriser, or pointless blue stuff? Get an empty one, and paint
concentric rings on it. Then hang it at the back, and tell him to see
if he can hit it dead centre every time. Every time he comes out, if
nobody much is about, you ask if he "hit the target", and make much of
the occasions when you yourself missed: it becomes a good Dad-son
laugh, and he won't be able to resist the challenge to beat you as
long as it's just a game.

The last drops thing is inevitable, as you say; that's just a question
of wiping carefully. My girls and boy were much amused when I told
them of a flat-mate of mine who one day when my brother was staying
asked in his cultured Ayrshire accent, "I keep seeing these bits of
folded paper floating in the toilet. Do you blokes dry the end of yir
knobs when ye've had a pee?" "Thoroughly", said my bro.

You're right that it isn't just foreskin: we're circumcised, and still
have to aim off and dry off.

Mike.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Paul Esposito
I don't think it has anything to do with the foreskin. Urine is
trapped temporarily in the urethra, necessitating a further act of
digital peristalsis to release it. My ten-year-old still hasn't
mastered it (or maybe he doesn't care). I always encourage him to sit
as his aim is also rather poor.

None of my business, Paul, but if you were family I'd say don't do
that. Some little shit at school is bound to notice and he'll catch
hell from the bastards.

Agreed. I'd rather teach my son to use a mop than to sit to pee.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Paul Esposito
I don't think it has anything to do with the foreskin. Urine is
trapped temporarily in the urethra, necessitating a further act of
digital peristalsis to release it. My ten-year-old still hasn't
mastered it (or maybe he doesn't care). I always encourage him to sit
as his aim is also rather poor.

None of my business, Paul, but if you were family I'd say don't do
that. Some little shit at school is bound to notice and he'll catch
hell from the bastards.

Agreed. I'd rather teach my son to use a mop than to sit to pee.

Yes, it's a good point, but you'd have to add a sponge for the seat,
the area behind the lid, then there's the adjacent kitty litter tray
to think of (the cats never miss!). Also what do you do when you visit
friends or a restaurant, or you're on an intercity train? Can you
really take a child somewhere who has a wet patch on his inner thigh
trouser leg? As I said to Mike Lyle, maybe I should just relax and see
it as someone else's problem, but I can't help thinking that at some
point the kids who migh tease the crap out of him for sitting while
pissing will harass him for smelling of piss.

As the father of two kids, I'd never presume to lecture someone else
on raising children.

I would suggest, though, that some things are just grown out of.
Something will happen - perhaps discovering girls - that will
self-cure the problem.

In the meantime, buy dark colored trousers of some material that dries
out rapidly.

[Paul Esposito]

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Paul Esposito
I don't think it has anything to do with the foreskin. Urine is
trapped temporarily in the urethra, necessitating a further act of
digital peristalsis to release it. My ten-year-old still hasn't
mastered it (or maybe he doesn't care). I always encourage him to sit
as his aim is also rather poor.

None of my business, Paul, but if you were family I'd say don't do
that. Some little shit at school is bound to notice and he'll catch
hell from the bastards.

I flatter myself to think he takes the blindest bit of notice of
anything I say. He pays so little attention to my directives (except
when in direct line of sight or driven by the prospect of immediate
gratification) that there's no danger of him sitting on a seat except
when defecating. I rehearse the advantages, note that I follow the
practice but he merely nods the kind of acknowledgemnet that means
"are you finished yet" and does whatever possesses him.

Post by Mike Lyle
You know those things you hang in the loo to dish out quantities of
deodoriser, or pointless blue stuff? Get an empty one, and paint
concentric rings on it. Then hang it at the back, and tell him to see
if he can hit it dead centre every time. Every time he comes out, if
nobody much is about, you ask if he "hit the target", and make much of
the occasions when you yourself missed: it becomes a good Dad-son
laugh, and he won't be able to resist the challenge to beat you as
long as it's just a game.

I'm obviously very repressed. I don't think I could quite manage that.
The idea of pissing competition-as-learning-exercise with my
ten-year-old sounds like a tremendous idea in theory, but it's not an
idea that sits well with the rest of my self image. I'll put my hand
up to neurosis on this one.

Post by Mike Lyle
The last drops thing is inevitable, as you say; that's just a question
of wiping carefully. My girls and boy were much amused when I told
them of a flat-mate of mine who one day when my brother was staying
asked in his cultured Ayrshire accent, "I keep seeing these bits of
folded paper floating in the toilet. Do you blokes dry the end of yir
knobs when ye've had a pee?" "Thoroughly", said my bro.

I think he regards the whole process as a damn nuisance, that bites
into his time for doing anything more interesting -- that being
everything else. He leaves his departure in the direction of the loo
to the second preceding forced evacuation of the contents of his
bladder, and occasionally wants to begin putting away the equipment
before it is fully disgorged. Visiting the loo late at night and
having to check for spillage is one of the less savoury aspects of
young children. I'm from the far left you know, and in consequence
favour non-coercive relationships among humans, but moments like this
prompt me to wonder whether there isn't some value in callous and
persistent repression.

Post by Mike Lyle
You're right that it isn't just foreskin: we're circumcised, and still
have to aim off and dry off.
Mike.

Quite.

PE

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman
BTW, has anyone heard these rhymes or variants thereof?
No matter how you prance and dance,
The last few drops run down your pants.
No matter how you shake your peg,
The last few drops run down your leg.

You can shake it, you can break it.
You can beat it against the wall.
But until you put it in your pants
That last drop won't fall.
Here's a related one, from the wall of the student union bathroom at the
Here I sit all wrapped in vapor.
The bastard ahead of me used all the paper.
I hear the bell ringing and I mustn't linger.
Look out, asshole! Here comes my finger.

Shithouse poets, when they die
will have erected, tall and high
as tribute to their lousy wit
a monument of human shit.

Methinks, from this display of wit
that Shakespeare came here to shit.

(Library loo, University of the Witwatersrand, 1959)

I recently had occasion to visit the same loo a couple of weeks ago, and there
wasn't a graffito in sight. O tempora, O mores!

[Irwell]

Post by CyberCypher
[...]

Post by Dana Prescott
I must say, if my religion
required me to pee squatting rather than standing, and frowned on
the installation of urinals, I'd certainly give serious thought to
having a religious conversion. In any case, I can't imagine that
God gives a flying flush if guys pee standing up. It's clearly a
cultural and a practical "male plumbing" perk, and (if you please)
the enjoyment of one of our "special anatomical gifts". It's not
even remotely a theological issue.

It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk" but
about a lack of female imagination. See the following to find out
http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.

It's no use standing on the seat 'cos our crabs can jump ten feet.

[Reinhold (Rey) Aman]

CyberCypher wrote:

[...]

Post by CyberCypher
It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk" but
about a lack of female imagination. See the following to find out
http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.

As they say, one pissure is worth a thousand words:

Loading Image... (48K)

[Murray Arnow]

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]

Post by CyberCypher
It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk" but
about a lack of female imagination. See the following to find out
http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.

http://www.curlydavid.com/images/equal4.jpg (48K)

Ok, but can she write her name in the snow?

[CyberCypher]

Post by Murray Arnow

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]

Post by CyberCypher
It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk"
but about a lack of female imagination. See the following to
find out how women are essentially equally endowed to pee
http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.

http://www.curlydavid.com/images/equal4.jpg (48K)

Ok, but can she write her name in the snow?

Oy! Murray. Does she have to?

[Timothy Lee]

In article <bio7ff$67q$***@e250.ripco.com>, Murray Arnow <***@iname.com>
writes

Post by Murray Arnow
Ok, but can she write her name in the snow?

Cue Fascinating Aida song about a Duchess:

How we laughed when she widdled her name in the snow,
But Beatrice the silly,
Carved a great big ice willy

[James Follett]

X-No-Archive: yes

I'm sure she can if she has a simple-to-write name like "Jo." It'd be
much more difficult if her name were, say, "Sara Moffat Lorimer" or

...

Thanks, Rey. This explains the meaning behind the title of my favourite
book: The Story of O.

God approached Adam and Eve carrying a little black bag and announced
that he had a couple of gifts for them. Adam's eyes lit up when God
produced the first gift. He gave a whoop of triumph, seized it, and
raced off up a mountain where he proceeded to prance about in delight
while writing his name in the snow, yelling what a wonderful device it
was.

Eve and God watched in silence for a few moments.

"Sad," said Eve at length.

God agreed, and commented: "I'll never get it back from him now." He
peered in his little black bag and said: "Sorry about this, Eve, but it
looks like you're stuck with the multiple orgasms."

[Murray Arnow]

Post by Murray Arnow

Post by Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]

Post by CyberCypher
It's not even remotely about "a practical 'male plumbing' perk"
but about a lack of female imagination. See the following to find
http://www.restrooms.org/standing.html
You'll never have to stand on the toilet seat again.

http://www.curlydavid.com/images/equal4.jpg (48K)

Ok, but can she write her name in the snow?

I'm sure she can if she has a simple-to-write name like "Jo." It'd be
much more difficult if her name were, say, "Sara Moffat Lorimer" or
"Anna-María de la Concepción." In such a case, the Negro standing
behind her [see photo] would gladly offer his bratwurst-fingers to
manipulate her labia minora and vaginal vestibule to do a reasonably
legible job.

Any guy unluckily named "Anna-María de la Concepción" would run out of
ink before dotting the last "i", regardless of whether or not he used
sans serif.

[Steve Hayes]

<...> And in India, guys of all faiths pee
openly outdoors just about any place they please, as you'll know if
you've travelled there. <...>

In Egypt, it is manifestly the custom of farmers who have to poop while
working in the fields to do so with their asses pointed toward the
windows of a passing train. It seems as if they delay nature until a
passing train presents the opportunity.

You've made a study of it?

[Mike Lyle]

In Egypt, it is manifestly the custom of farmers who have to poop
while working in the fields to do so with their asses pointed toward
the windows of a passing train. It seems as if they delay nature
until a passing train presents the opportunity.

What if they're raising sheep rather than asses?

It's much easier then: you only have to point one sheep toward the
train, and the others copy it.

Mike.

[Schultz]

In Egypt, it is manifestly the custom of farmers who have to poop
while working in the fields to do so with their asses pointed toward
the windows of a passing train. It seems as if they delay nature
until a passing train presents the opportunity.

What if they're raising sheep rather than asses?

One thing you can be fairly sure of -- it wasn't pigs.

Not necessarily. Egypt is 10% Christian, and there is a pork market in
Cairo.

\\P. Schultz

[William S. Hubbard]

How about urine cakes with "a noble verse" on it?

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Bob Cunningham

Post by Mike Lyle
[...]

Post by Robert Coates
Urinals in any event are rare in mosques; very orthodox
Muslims--for some esoteric reason which I forgot--also consider it a ritual
infraction to urinate standing.

[...]
I believe there are conflicting hadith on the subject, but that the
one which says the Prophet did sometimes urinate standing is taken to
be less authoritative. The idea, I believe, is simply to minimize
exposure: you have to haul up a lot of cloth to pee standing when
wearing traditional Arab dress, and it would look rather gross.

The above remarks have been crossposted to the following
alt.usage.english
alt.religion.christian.episcopal
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox
While readers of those groups will undoubtedly be interested
in whether or not the Prophet of Islam peed standing up, and
the inconvenience he may have experienced in trying to do
so, I should think the folks at alt.religion.islam may be
even more interested.

It seems that this particular sub-thread was introduced by a fellow called
Louis.
Perhaps he should have changed the subject line and set follow-ups
accordingly.

[Louis]

Post by Steve Hayes
It seems that this particular sub-thread was introduced by a fellow called
Louis.
Perhaps he should have changed the subject line and set follow-ups
accordingly.

Well, one never knows how a satirical comment will be taken (esp. on the
internet).

L

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Louis

Post by Steve Hayes
It seems that this particular sub-thread was introduced by a fellow called
Louis.
Perhaps he should have changed the subject line and set follow-ups
accordingly.

Well, one never knows how a satirical comment will be taken (esp. on the
internet).

Or *where* it will be taken - this time to the domestic animals of Egypt.

[Mike Lyle]

[...]

I've got a whole list of those bogus "acronym" etymologies, from "cabal"
to "wop."

Here come the myth-busters, hide your legends and beliefs.

Interesting, though, all the same. Acronyms are in general a rather
recent feature of the language, so of course it's unlikely that any
given older word is based on one. What, then, lies behind the desire
to find the derivation of common words in such a way?

I don't mean "reverse-acronym-formation", a good word-game evident in
some of the cases we hear about, where the acronyms concocted could
never have been seriously offered as derivations -- though the less
finely-tuned do sometimes seem to take them for the real thing.

It all puts me in mind of the "brass monkey" phenomenon, in which
strenuous efforts are made by the unpoetic to find difficult
explanations for a simple expression.

Mike.

[Maria Conlon]

(Newgroups trimmed to AUE only)
[ . . . ]

Post by Mike Lyle
I don't mean "reverse-acronym-formation", a good word-game evident in
some of the cases we hear about, where the acronyms concocted could
never have been seriously offered as derivations -- though the less
finely-tuned do sometimes seem to take them for the real thing.

I think contrived acronyms are a blight on the language.
To express my contempt for them, I once contrived one of my
own: ABSCISSA
"A bore that should cease is stupid, silly acronyms."

That works out to ABTSCISSA.

NTIM.

Maria Conlon

[Bob Cunningham]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:48:40 -0400, "Maria Conlon"

Post by Maria Conlon

(Newsgroups trimmed to AUE only)
[ . . . ]

Post by Mike Lyle
I don't mean "reverse-acronym-formation", a good word-game evident in
some of the cases we hear about, where the acronyms concocted could
never have been seriously offered as derivations -- though the less
finely-tuned do sometimes seem to take them for the real thing.

I think contrived acronyms are a blight on the language.
To express my contempt for them, I once contrived one of my
own: ABSCISSA
"A bore that should cease is stupid, silly acronyms."

That works out to ABTSCISSA.

Yes, Tootsie, I know, but thanks for commenting; it's always
a treat to hear from you.

The contriver of farfetched acronyms has license to ignore
or include things like prepositions, articles, and
conjunctions that don't contribute to the preponderant
insignificance of the thing acronymized.

As you undoubtedly know, "abscissa" is a good English word;
"abtscissa" is not.

To the contriver or connoisseur of silly acronyms,
"ABSCISSA" may represent the exquisite ultimate in
farfetchedness, since rather than expressing at a long
stretch the idea of the thing acronymized, as many contrived
acronyms do, it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Consider "Organization OF Petroleum Exporting Countries":
OPEC, which, although it isn't a contrived or farfetched
acronym, by ignoring "of" still illustrates the license
mentioned.

Scanning a list of acronyms at
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/acronyms/U.html
, having picked at random the "U" list, I find

UQAM Universite de Quebec a Montreal

, which illustrates both the ignoring and retention of minor
words. To some French acronym contriver, the "de" was
tossable, while the "a" was keepable to presumably produce a
pronounceable acronym. I don't speak French, but I think
the "Que" in "Quebec" is pronounced something like my "c" in
"cookie", so a French speaker may pronounce "UQAM" something
like "oo-kam".

Fond regards,
Bart

[Ray Heindl]

Post by Bob Cunningham
To the contriver or connoisseur of silly acronyms,
"ABSCISSA" may represent the exquisite ultimate in
farfetchedness, since rather than expressing at a long
stretch the idea of the thing acronymized, as many contrived
acronyms do, it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'm partial to "the Society for the Preservation and Enhancement of the
Reputation of Millard Fillmore, Last of the Whigs", or SPERMFLOW.
Though I don't know enough about Mr. Fillmore's private life to know
whether the acronym is apt in his case.

[Matti Lamprhey]

Post by Ray Heindl
I'm partial to "the Society for the Preservation and Enhancement of
the Reputation of Millard Fillmore, Last of the Whigs", or SPERMFLOW.
Though I don't know enough about Mr. Fillmore's private life to know
whether the acronym is apt in his case.

If not, then it's presumably an anacronym.

Matti

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Post by Ray Heindl

Post by Bob Cunningham
To the contriver or connoisseur of silly acronyms,
"ABSCISSA" may represent the exquisite ultimate in
farfetchedness, since rather than expressing at a long
stretch the idea of the thing acronymized, as many contrived
acronyms do, it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'm partial to "the Society for the Preservation and Enhancement of the
Reputation of Millard Fillmore, Last of the Whigs", or SPERMFLOW.
Though I don't know enough about Mr. Fillmore's private life to know
whether the acronym is apt in his case.

"I think we're all beginning to lose site of the real issue here,
which is, what are we going to call ourselves? I've narrowed it
down to two suggestions. The League Against Salivating Monsters,
or, my own personal preference, the Committee for the Liberation
and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation
Into Society. Uhm, one drawback with that, the abbreviation is
CLITORIS."
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Giving money and power to government
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is like giving whiskey and car keys
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to teenage boys.
| P.J. O'Rourke
***@hpl.hp.com
[phone]

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Timothy Lee]

Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
"I think we're all beginning to lose site of the real issue here,
which is, what are we going to call ourselves? I've narrowed it
down to two suggestions. The League Against Salivating Monsters,
or, my own personal preference, the Committee for the Liberation
and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation
Into Society. Uhm, one drawback with that, the abbreviation is
CLITORIS."

Unfortunately Durham Inter-Collegiate Christian Union is genuine.

[Bob Cunningham]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:49:55 -0000, Ray Heindl

Post by Ray Heindl

Post by Bob Cunningham
To the contriver or connoisseur of silly acronyms,
"ABSCISSA" may represent the exquisite ultimate in
farfetchedness, since rather than expressing at a long
stretch the idea of the thing acronymized, as many contrived
acronyms do, it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'm partial to "the Society for the Preservation and Enhancement of the
Reputation of Millard Fillmore, Last of the Whigs", or SPERMFLOW.
Though I don't know enough about Mr. Fillmore's private life to know
whether the acronym is apt in his case.

After due consideration, I must give the first prize to
"ABSCISSA". It quite clearly can have no relation to
stupid, silly acronyms. On the other hand, for all we know,
"SPERMFLOW" may have been an obsession that drove every
aspect of Fillmore's existence.

[Timothy Lee]

Post by Ray Heindl

Post by Bob Cunningham
To the contriver or connoisseur of silly acronyms,
"ABSCISSA" may represent the exquisite ultimate in
farfetchedness, since rather than expressing at a long
stretch the idea of the thing acronymized, as many contrived
acronyms do, it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'm partial to "the Society for the Preservation and Enhancement of the
Reputation of Millard Fillmore, Last of the Whigs", or SPERMFLOW.
Though I don't know enough about Mr. Fillmore's private life to know
whether the acronym is apt in his case.

Is this leading to the Netball Team of a certain light blue university
that always makes it through to the final of the boat race?

[Matti Lamprhey]

Post by Maria Conlon

I think contrived acronyms are a blight on the language.
To express my contempt for them, I once contrived one of my
own: ABSCISSA
"A bore that should cease is stupid, silly acronyms."

That works out to ABTSCISSA.
NTIM.

Maria, I just thought you ought to know that, in the other groups I
frequent, that's "Nubile tits in Marmite".

Matti

[Maria Conlon]

Maria Conlon wrote...

Post by Maria Conlon

I think contrived acronyms are a blight on the language.
To express my contempt for them, I once contrived one of my
own: ABSCISSA
"A bore that should cease is stupid, silly acronyms."

That works out to ABTSCISSA.
NTIM.

Maria, I just thought you ought to know that, in the other groups I
frequent, that's "Nubile tits in Marmite".

Stay out of those groups, then. They lack refinement.

Maria Conlon

[James Follett]

X-No-Archive: yes

I think contrived acronyms are a blight on the language.

Me, too.

[R J Valentine]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 23:53:27 +0100 Padraig Breathnach <***@iol.ie> wrote:

} James Follett <***@marage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
}
}>In article <***@4ax.com>, Bob Cunningham
}><***@earthlink.net> writes
}>
}>>I think contrived acronyms are a blight on the language.
}>
}>Me, too.
}
} Aw c'mon Jimbo! You're not really a blight on the language.

Sparky isn't a BOTL, either.

[Mike Lyle]

Saint Fu Fu <***@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<***@pacbell.net>...
[...]

Post by Saint Fu Fu
It is said that the acronym "Posh"
stands for Port Out Starboard Home [...]

Not by anybody in alt.usage.english, it isn't.

Mike.

[John Varela]

Post by Steve Hayes
If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
explain, but the chance would be slim.

I have a copy of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church USA,
and it is silent about where "the Minister appointed" stands for the Epistle
and Gospel.

[Bob Cunningham]

Post by John Varela

Post by Steve Hayes
If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
explain, but the chance would be slim.

I have a copy of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church USA,
and it is silent about where "the Minister appointed" stands for the Epistle
and Gospel.

As I said, it's a largely unwritten tradition, though it is written up in some
devotional manuals (not the official Prayer Books), with some symbolic reasons
given for it.
The edition of "Ritual Notes" (a manual for Anglo-Catholic priests, servers
etc) that I have ignores the symbolical reasons as fanciful, and says simply
that at high mass, which is celebrated by a priest, a deacon and a sub-deacon,
the priest stands on the top step, the deacon stands on his right hand (when
they face the people), but one step down, and the sub-deacon stands on his
left, another step down. As it was the duty of the deacon to read the gospel,
and that of the sub-deacon to read the epistle, the deacon's side became the
"gospel side", and the sub-deacon's side became the "epistle side", and at Low
Mass, when the priest had to take the sub-deacon's part, he moved to the
epistle side to reasd the epistle, and when he took the deacon's part he moved
to the deacon's side to read the gospel.
Even that is not certain, but it is plausible.
But it doesn't answer Bob Cunningham's question, which was about the
significance of the laity habitually sitting in pews on one side or the other,
as described in a novel.

Thank you for being one of those who have shown awareness
that I asked that question.

I've decided that there almost certainly is no great
significance. It seems likely that, if there were some deep
underlying significance, in the numerous postings to this
thread someone would have come up with a meaning beyond the
one stated by an early responder: When I rephrased my
question to "If I normally sit on, say, the gospel side,
what does that tell someone about me?" she answered, in
effect, "It shows you're a creature of habit".

In the church that my wife and I attend fairly regularly, we
invariably sit on the right side of the center aisle. I
don't know why we do, except that we've been doing it so
long it would seem quite strange to sit on the other side.
Most, if not all, of the people sitting on either side are
the ones who are always on that side. I think now that
that probably has just as much significance as someone
sitting invariably on the gospel side or the epistle side in
an Episcopal church.

The suggestion of writing to the author, c/o the publishers, is probably the
best one, but I rather hope that if Bob learns why, he will post it here.

I won't be making that inquiry, but if anyone else does,
I'll read with interest any response they get.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Bob Cunningham

But it doesn't answer Bob Cunningham's question, which was about the
significance of the laity habitually sitting in pews on one side or the other,
as described in a novel.

Thank you for being one of those who have shown awareness
that I asked that question.
I've decided that there almost certainly is no great
significance. It seems likely that, if there were some deep
underlying significance, in the numerous postings to this
thread someone would have come up with a meaning beyond the
one stated by an early responder: When I rephrased my
question to "If I normally sit on, say, the gospel side,
what does that tell someone about me?" she answered, in
effect, "It shows you're a creature of habit".

I've followed this one up more persistently than most such queries, because I
too wonder if there might be something in it. I have a vague memory of having
read something similar in a novel once - probably someone who wrote
ecclcesiastical novels. Trollope was probably too early, Susan Howatch too
late, but Rose McCauley, Ernest Raymond...

Perhaps it really did mean no more than to give a picture of where people were
sitting in the church when something happened. But there is this
half-remembered niggle that it did mean more than that.

Post by Bob Cunningham
In the church that my wife and I attend fairly regularly, we
invariably sit on the right side of the center aisle. I
don't know why we do, except that we've been doing it so
long it would seem quite strange to sit on the other side.
Most, if not all, of the people sitting on either side are
the ones who are always on that side. I think now that
that probably has just as much significance as someone
sitting invariably on the gospel side or the epistle side in
an Episcopal church.

The suggestion of writing to the author, c/o the publishers, is probably the
best one, but I rather hope that if Bob learns why, he will post it here.

I won't be making that inquiry, but if anyone else does,
I'll read with interest any response they get.

What was the book again?

I might try to read it.

[Bob Cunningham]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:09:11 GMT, ***@yahoo.com (Steve
Hayes) said:

[ . . . ]

Post by Steve Hayes
What was the book again?
I might try to read it.

It's a series of highly successful books, written by Jan
Karon, a lady who had done well as an advertising executive,
but decided to retire from that, move to North Carolina, and
write some books.

You can read about her and about her books, and you can read
a chapter from the first Mitford book, at
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/writers/writer.asp?cid=881724
. The ninth book in the series is supposed to be the last.
It's due out in 2005.

Some of the posters in this thread seem to have assumed that
I was commenting on the way things were in the past. Jan
Karon's Mitford books are set in the present day.

Google gives lots of hits on Jan Karon. One that religious
people should find particularly interesting is
http://www.christianitytoday.com/cr/2001/003/10.60.html
. `

I'm not all that religious, but I greatly enjoy reading the
Mitford books for their wholesomeness and warmth, and for
their portrayal of interesting people doing interesting
things in a small town.

[Robert Coates]

I'm going to shamelessly interject my own poor contribution here, having
already read everyone else's:

I think it relates to the specific church in the story, rather than a
general rule. And I know most of the general rules, having for several
years attended a grand old Anglo-Catholic church that observed rules even
the Pope never heard of.

I think the amusing POSH sidebar may bear a clue. The effect of the morning
sun would have the effect of making one side of the church more comfortable
than the other. If the epistle side were south or east, it would get direct
sunlight through the windows and might be very unpleasant. The better
established parishioners would of course get the better seats.

Also, it used to be common practice for churches to reserve pews in the
forward area of the church for regular contributors or those who contributed
to the permanent endowment. You can still see the nice little brass plaques
on the back of the pews in old Episcopal churches. Presbyterians did it
too. This practice was gradually abandoned after the 1960's because it was
deemed undemocratic and exclusionary, but of course, people continue to sit
in the same seats out of habit. Perhaps the wealthy old-timers had "owned"
pews in the front near the pulpit (Gospel side) where they would have a
better view of the preacher, and vice versa. The poor people nobody wanted
to look at sat on the other side.

Good luck on your research. This thread has been a real ride.

Post by Bob Cunningham

Post by John Varela

Post by Steve Hayes
If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
explain, but the chance would be slim.

I have a copy of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church USA,
and it is silent about where "the Minister appointed" stands for the Epistle
and Gospel.

As I said, it's a largely unwritten tradition, though it is written up in some
devotional manuals (not the official Prayer Books), with some symbolic reasons
given for it.
The edition of "Ritual Notes" (a manual for Anglo-Catholic priests, servers
etc) that I have ignores the symbolical reasons as fanciful, and says simply
that at high mass, which is celebrated by a priest, a deacon and a sub-deacon,
the priest stands on the top step, the deacon stands on his right hand (when
they face the people), but one step down, and the sub-deacon stands on his
left, another step down. As it was the duty of the deacon to read the gospel,
and that of the sub-deacon to read the epistle, the deacon's side became the
"gospel side", and the sub-deacon's side became the "epistle side", and at Low
Mass, when the priest had to take the sub-deacon's part, he moved to the
epistle side to reasd the epistle, and when he took the deacon's part he moved
to the deacon's side to read the gospel.
Even that is not certain, but it is plausible.
But it doesn't answer Bob Cunningham's question, which was about the
significance of the laity habitually sitting in pews on one side or the other,
as described in a novel.

Thank you for being one of those who have shown awareness
that I asked that question.
I've decided that there almost certainly is no great
significance. It seems likely that, if there were some deep
underlying significance, in the numerous postings to this
thread someone would have come up with a meaning beyond the
one stated by an early responder: When I rephrased my
question to "If I normally sit on, say, the gospel side,
what does that tell someone about me?" she answered, in
effect, "It shows you're a creature of habit".
In the church that my wife and I attend fairly regularly, we
invariably sit on the right side of the center aisle. I
don't know why we do, except that we've been doing it so
long it would seem quite strange to sit on the other side.
Most, if not all, of the people sitting on either side are
the ones who are always on that side. I think now that
that probably has just as much significance as someone
sitting invariably on the gospel side or the epistle side in
an Episcopal church.

The suggestion of writing to the author, c/o the publishers, is probably the
best one, but I rather hope that if Bob learns why, he will post it here.

I won't be making that inquiry, but if anyone else does,
I'll read with interest any response they get.

[Mike Lyle]

***@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message news:<***@news.saix.net>...
[...]

As I said, it's a largely unwritten tradition, though it is written up in some
devotional manuals (not the official Prayer Books), with some symbolic reasons
given for it.
The edition of "Ritual Notes" (a manual for Anglo-Catholic priests, servers
etc) that I have ignores the symbolical reasons as fanciful,[...]

In confirmation of this disappointment, I've just heard from a
clerical friend:

QUOTE/
What recondite tastes in chat line!! I would imagine the reason, if
reason there be, would be along these lines:

the normative form of celebrating mass is sung with lots of clergy and
servers etc. (High Mass.) A low mass is a reduced form of high mass.
At high mass the Gospel would be read in the body of the church after
a
short procession (Gospel Procession). At a low mass you have a
truncated procession from one side of the altar to the other.

As my Liturgy tutor once observed, "it is a grave mistake to imagine
that liturgy is always logical".

Like anything(body) which evolves, there are bits for which nobody can
fully account.
/ENDQUOTE

But it doesn't answer Bob Cunningham's question, which was about the
significance of the laity habitually sitting in pews on one side or the other,
as described in a novel.
The suggestion of writing to the author, c/o the publishers, is probably the
best one, but I rather hope that if Bob learns why, he will post it here.

I hope so too, but I imagine that, as somebody's suggested, it's just
that people have habits.

Has anybody mentioned that in England the wealthy often used to rent
their own particular pews, sometimes I believe screened from the
vulgar gaze? I imagine that some families would choose to have their
pews or stalls nearer to or farther from the pulpit (always on the
Gospel side?) according to taste.

There is a connection here with the perhaps not quite obsolete
practice of having certain clerical "livings" at the disposal of
certain people or bodies. (My old school chaplain on retirement became
Rector of a tiny but ornamental parish by courtesy, I understood, of
his old Oxford College.) You pay for it, you get the best seat.

Mike.

[Bob Cunningham]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 03:52:13 GMT, ***@yahoo.com (Steve
Hayes) said that Mike Lyle) wrote that
[ . . . ]

But it doesn't answer Bob Cunningham's question,
which was about the significance of the laity
habitually sitting in pews on one side or the other,
as described in a novel.

It's embarrassing to confess it at this late date, but it
turns out my question reflected a breakdown of communication
between me and the person with whom I've shared a home for
the past three score years or so.

What she was curious about was not the significance of
sitting on one side or the other, but the reasons one side
was called the gospel side and the other, the epistle side.
She was fully satisfied with an answer I was able to give
her soon after the thread began. I didn't know she was so
soon satisfied, and she didn't know I was long after trying
to find an answer to the wrong question.

Many thanks to all who have contributed. Although I led you
down the wrong path, your comments have been interesting and
worthwhile to read.

[Christopher Green]

***@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
[snip]

Post by Mike Lyle
Has anybody mentioned that in England the wealthy often used to rent
their own particular pews, sometimes I believe screened from the
vulgar gaze? I imagine that some families would choose to have their
pews or stalls nearer to or farther from the pulpit (always on the
Gospel side?) according to taste.
There is a connection here with the perhaps not quite obsolete
practice of having certain clerical "livings" at the disposal of
certain people or bodies. (My old school chaplain on retirement became
Rector of a tiny but ornamental parish by courtesy, I understood, of
his old Oxford College.) You pay for it, you get the best seat.
Mike.

Old habits tend to die slowly in congregations. A pastor friend
recalls preaching in a church in Scotland. At the start, all the
parishioners sat in one corner. Then, right in the middle of worship,
they all got up and moved to the opposite corner. Later, he asked what
the significance of this was.

It seems the church used to be heated by a stove that stood in the
first corner, so that had been the only warm place in the church. As
the service progressed, and the church warmed up, it would become
uncomfortably hot too close to the stove.

The church had long been fitted with central heating, but the
tradition remained.

[Bob Cunningham]

On 28 Aug 2003 09:05:02 -0700, ***@worldnet.att.net
(Christopher Green) said:

[ . . . ]

Post by Christopher Green
Old habits tend to die slowly in congregations. A pastor friend
recalls preaching in a church in Scotland. At the start, all the
parishioners sat in one corner. Then, right in the middle of worship,
they all got up and moved to the opposite corner. Later, he asked what
the significance of this was.
It seems the church used to be heated by a stove that stood in the
first corner, so that had been the only warm place in the church. As
the service progressed, and the church warmed up, it would become
uncomfortably hot too close to the stove.
The church had long been fitted with central heating, but the
tradition remained.

There are probably several similar stories. One of them
tells about the lady who always cut a slice off the end of a
roast before she put it in the oven. She said she did that
because her mother always did it. Turned out her mother had
a relatively small pan for doing roasts, so she usually had
to cut a little off the end to fit the roast into the pan.

[Steve Hayes]

[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes
If anyone has a devotional manual dating from the 1930s, perhaps it might
explain, but the chance would be slim. It was probably an unwritten tradition,
and once it is no longer a living tradition, the meaning is probably
irrecoverable.

Wow Steve, I'm always amazed at what a great anthropologist you would
make. :-)
I used to have a copy of the original 1920s, Liturgy of St. James-based
Book of Common Prayer. I gave it to someone, though. I'll try to ask
him if it mentions that in there. Actually, it was someone that you
might know from the livejournal community (a common friend of ours) --
so if you put it on your Journal, he might notice it himself.

I looked it up in "Ritual notes", 1964 edition, and in Lowther Clark, "Liturgy
and worship". No joy.

BTW, did that postcard get to you from Crete?

Yes, a couple of days ago, thanks very much. Are you still there?

[Zaph'enath]

Steve Hayes wrote:

[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes

BTW, did that postcard get to you from Crete?

Yes, a couple of days ago, thanks very much. Are you still there?

Sadly, no. I know I should be grateful to be wherever I am, but it was
pure joy being there. There was an element of serenity at just being
out of the USSA, I think. I was there just long enough to really get
used to it. I ought to be going back next year, though. And, I've
arranged to take Greek lessons at the nearby Greek Orthodox parish.
Either way, I won't regret learning Greek.

The post in Crete is, mmmm, quirky. The postman would come pick up the
mail at the study center when he had the urge. I mailed several to my
home all on the same day, and they showed up spread over a week and a
half. I was just worried that yours fell off the side of the plane or
something... ;-)

- Joseph

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Bob Cunningham
In Jan Karon's books about Mitford and Father Tim's
Episcopal church, there are mentions of an "epistle side"
and a "gospel side". Some of the characters in the books
normally sit on the epistle side, while others sit on the
gospel side.
At http://www.allsaintssmyrna.org/www/html/glossary.htm
there's a glossary of terms pertaining to the Episcopal
Church. Among other things, it says
Lesson
also the Epistle; any reading from the Bible except
the Gospels or Psalms; usually read on the opposite
side of the church from where the Gospel is read; in
older practice the Lesson was read from the "Epistle
Side"--the right side facing the altar, while the
Gospel was read from the "Gospel Side"--the left side
facing the altar. Current practice in many Episcopal
churches does not conform to this older pattern.
That seems clear enough, but what is not clear is the
significance of someone sitting on one side or the other.
If I were to sit regularly on the gospel side -- or the
epistle side -- what would that tell the other congregants
about me, if anything?

Maybe just what group you were in? Some families, cliques, etc., in
that parish might have been in the habit of sitting on one side.