Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: "Let's get the analogy right and ask how would Melbourne/Australia feel about sending up an iconic Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?"
I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm sure your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better than mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture of a saint or other venerated person.
My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an ignorant, bumbling fool?
> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: "Let's > get the analogy right and ask how would Melbourne/Australia feel about > sending up an iconic Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?"
> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm sure > your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better than mine, > but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture of a saint or > other venerated person.
> My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an > ignorant, bumbling fool?
Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ and the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a particular group of people might be a venerated symbol of popular culture. I don't have any complaints about the quoted example or the person who wrote it.
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote: > Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >> Sylvia,
>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: "Let's get >> the analogy right and ask how would Melbourne/Australia feel about >> sending up an iconic Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?"
>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm sure >> your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better than mine, >> but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture of a saint or >> other venerated person.
>> My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an >> ignorant, bumbling fool?
> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ and the > Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a particular group > of people might be a venerated symbol of popular culture. I don't have > any complaints about the quoted example or the person who wrote it.
What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile?
Horry wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote:
>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>> Sylvia,
>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: "Let's get >>> the analogy right and ask how would Melbourne/Australia feel about >>> sending up an iconic Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?"
>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm sure >>> your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better than mine, >>> but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture of a saint or >>> other venerated person.
>>> My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an >>> ignorant, bumbling fool? >> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ and the >> Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a particular group >> of people might be a venerated symbol of popular culture. I don't have >> any complaints about the quoted example or the person who wrote it.
> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile?
Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter the truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it.
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: > Horry wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote:
>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>> Sylvia,
>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: "Let's >>>> get the analogy right and ask how would Melbourne/Australia feel >>>> about sending up an iconic Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical >>>> group?"
>>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm sure >>>> your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better than >>>> mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture of a >>>> saint or other venerated person.
>>>> My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an >>>> ignorant, bumbling fool? >>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ and >>> the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a particular >>> group of people might be a venerated symbol of popular culture. I >>> don't have any complaints about the quoted example or the person who >>> wrote it.
>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile?
> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter the truth > of what he wrote at the time he wrote it.
What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original piece?
Horry wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Horry wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote:
>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>>> Sylvia,
>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: "Let's >>>>> get the analogy right and ask how would Melbourne/Australia feel >>>>> about sending up an iconic Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical >>>>> group?"
>>>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm sure >>>>> your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better than >>>>> mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture of a >>>>> saint or other venerated person.
>>>>> My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an >>>>> ignorant, bumbling fool? >>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ and >>>> the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a particular >>>> group of people might be a venerated symbol of popular culture. I >>>> don't have any complaints about the quoted example or the person who >>>> wrote it. >>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? >> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter the truth >> of what he wrote at the time he wrote it.
> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original piece?
Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for defamation.
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: > Horry wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> Horry wrote: >>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote:
>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>>>> Sylvia,
>>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: "Let's >>>>>> get the analogy right and ask how would Melbourne/Australia feel >>>>>> about sending up an iconic Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical >>>>>> group?"
>>>>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm >>>>>> sure your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better >>>>>> than mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture >>>>>> of a saint or other venerated person.
>>>>>> My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an >>>>>> ignorant, bumbling fool? >>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ and >>>>> the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a >>>>> particular group of people might be a venerated symbol of popular >>>>> culture. I don't have any complaints about the quoted example or the >>>>> person who wrote it. >>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? >>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter the >>> truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it.
>> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original piece?
> Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for > defamation.
And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of NSW.
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: > > Horry wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>> Horry wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote:
> >>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > >>>>>> Sylvia,
> >>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: "Let's > >>>>>> get the analogy right and ask how would Melbourne/Australia feel > >>>>>> about sending up an iconic Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical > >>>>>> group?"
> >>>>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm > >>>>>> sure your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better > >>>>>> than mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture > >>>>>> of a saint or other venerated person.
> >>>>>> My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an > >>>>>> ignorant, bumbling fool? > >>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ and > >>>>> the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a > >>>>> particular group of people might be a venerated symbol of popular > >>>>> culture. I don't have any complaints about the quoted example or the > >>>>> person who wrote it. > >>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? > >>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter the > >>> truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it.
> >> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original piece?
> > Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for > > defamation.
> And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of NSW.
Dobbing is so un-Australian. I bet Harry Connick Jnr is a dobber.
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:01:21 -0700, I Coach wrote: > On Oct 14, 12:57 pm, Horry <horacewach...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >> > Horry wrote: >> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> >>> Horry wrote: >> >>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote:
>> >>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >> >>>>>> Sylvia,
>> >>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: >> >>>>>> "Let's get the analogy right and ask how would >> >>>>>> Melbourne/Australia feel about sending up an iconic >> >>>>>> Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?"
>> >>>>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm >> >>>>>> sure your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better >> >>>>>> than mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small >> >>>>>> picture of a saint or other venerated person.
>> >>>>>> My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an >> >>>>>> ignorant, bumbling fool? >> >>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ >> >>>>> and the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a >> >>>>> particular group of people might be a venerated symbol of popular >> >>>>> culture. I don't have any complaints about the quoted example or >> >>>>> the person who wrote it. >> >>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? >> >>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter the >> >>> truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it.
>> >> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original piece?
>> > Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for >> > defamation.
>> And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of NSW.
> Dobbing is so un-Australian. I bet Harry Connick Jnr is a dobber.
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:01:21 -0700, I Coach wrote: > > On Oct 14, 12:57 pm, Horry <horacewach...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > Horry wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> >>> Horry wrote: > >> >>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote:
> >> >>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > >> >>>>>> Sylvia,
> >> >>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: > >> >>>>>> "Let's get the analogy right and ask how would > >> >>>>>> Melbourne/Australia feel about sending up an iconic > >> >>>>>> Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?"
> >> >>>>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm > >> >>>>>> sure your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better > >> >>>>>> than mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small > >> >>>>>> picture of a saint or other venerated person.
> >> >>>>>> My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an > >> >>>>>> ignorant, bumbling fool? > >> >>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ > >> >>>>> and the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a > >> >>>>> particular group of people might be a venerated symbol of popular > >> >>>>> culture. I don't have any complaints about the quoted example or > >> >>>>> the person who wrote it. > >> >>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? > >> >>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter the > >> >>> truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it.
> >> >> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original piece?
> >> > Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for > >> > defamation.
> >> And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of NSW.
> > Dobbing is so un-Australian. I bet Harry Connick Jnr is a dobber.
> He's also an American. Whoooooosh.
That didn't stop him trying to dictate how we should conduct ourselves.
> > Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: "Let's > > get the analogy right and ask how would Melbourne/Australia feel about > > sending up an iconic Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?"
> > I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm sure > > your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better than mine, > > but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture of a saint or > > other venerated person.
> > My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an > > ignorant, bumbling fool?
> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ and the Virgin > Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a particular group of people > might be a venerated symbol of popular culture. I don't have any complaints > about the quoted example or the person who wrote it.
You appear to have trouble differentiating between a reference and its referent. The icon is the small picture, not the person depicted in the picture. You could, in populist abusage, broaden venerated person to any famous person, such as the famous paedophile Michael Jackson. You could also broaden the meaning of small picture to include somewhat larger pictures, say poster-sized. So a wall poster of the famous paedophile Michael Jackson could, at a stretch, be called an icon. But Michael Jackson is not an icon.
Now you say that a person, or even a group of people, can be 'symbolic' of some greater, abstract movement. Such that the infamous Michael Jackson could be symbolic of the problem of paedophilia generally. With that I agree. But the essential point of an icon is that it is *not* a symbolic representation of anything, but rather a realistic representation of a particular person.
Equating 'iconic' with 'symbolic' is akin to the over-excited news reporters who confuse literal and virtual explosions, saying of a child with ADHD, "He literally exploded".
Horry wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Horry wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> Horry wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote:
>>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>>>>> Sylvia,
>>>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: "Let's >>>>>>> get the analogy right and ask how would Melbourne/Australia feel >>>>>>> about sending up an iconic Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical >>>>>>> group?"
>>>>>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm >>>>>>> sure your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better >>>>>>> than mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture >>>>>>> of a saint or other venerated person.
>>>>>>> My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an >>>>>>> ignorant, bumbling fool? >>>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ and >>>>>> the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a >>>>>> particular group of people might be a venerated symbol of popular >>>>>> culture. I don't have any complaints about the quoted example or the >>>>>> person who wrote it. >>>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? >>>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter the >>>> truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it. >>> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original piece? >> Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for >> defamation.
> And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of NSW.
On what possible ground? Why would the Law society be interested?
> Horry wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> Horry wrote: > >>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> Horry wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote:
> >>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > >>>>>>> Sylvia,
> >>>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: "Let's > >>>>>>> get the analogy right and ask how would Melbourne/Australia feel > >>>>>>> about sending up an iconic Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical > >>>>>>> group?"
> >>>>>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm > >>>>>>> sure your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better > >>>>>>> than mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture > >>>>>>> of a saint or other venerated person.
> >>>>>>> My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an > >>>>>>> ignorant, bumbling fool? > >>>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ and > >>>>>> the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a > >>>>>> particular group of people might be a venerated symbol of popular > >>>>>> culture. I don't have any complaints about the quoted example or the > >>>>>> person who wrote it. > >>>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? > >>>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter the > >>>> truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it. > >>> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original piece? > >> Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for > >> defamation.
> > And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of NSW.
> On what possible ground? Why would the Law society be interested?
> Sylvia.
Presumably for practicing law without a license or whatever. Tell 'em you were just practising, not practicing. That confuses most people born after 1970 enough to make them leave one alone.
What's this squiggly, red line under licence? Sylvia, my sweet, what's your understanding of licence/license? I can't be bothered consulting a less reputable source.
Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > On Oct 14, 4:46 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote: >> Horry wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> Horry wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> Horry wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote: >>>>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>>>>>>> Sylvia, >>>>>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: "Let's >>>>>>>>> get the analogy right and ask how would Melbourne/Australia feel >>>>>>>>> about sending up an iconic Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical >>>>>>>>> group?" >>>>>>>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm >>>>>>>>> sure your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better >>>>>>>>> than mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture >>>>>>>>> of a saint or other venerated person. >>>>>>>>> My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an >>>>>>>>> ignorant, bumbling fool? >>>>>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ and >>>>>>>> the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a >>>>>>>> particular group of people might be a venerated symbol of popular >>>>>>>> culture. I don't have any complaints about the quoted example or the >>>>>>>> person who wrote it. >>>>>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? >>>>>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter the >>>>>> truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it. >>>>> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original piece? >>>> Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for >>>> defamation. >>> And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of NSW. >> On what possible ground? Why would the Law society be interested?
>> Sylvia.
> Presumably for practicing law without a license or whatever. Tell 'em > you were just practising, not practicing. That confuses most people > born after 1970 enough to make them leave one alone.
Well in any case, anyone can express views about the law, and even advise other people. What they cannot do without recognised qualification and licensing, is charge for their service.
> What's this squiggly, red line under licence? Sylvia, my sweet, what's > your understanding of licence/license? I can't be bothered consulting > a less reputable source.
> Sorry for calling you a 'biatch' yesterday.
I've been around Usenet a while. Water off a duck's back.
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:54:10 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: > Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >> On Oct 14, 4:46 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote: >>> Horry wrote: >>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> Horry wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> Horry wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote: >>>>>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia, >>>>>>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: >>>>>>>>>> "Let's get the analogy right and ask how would >>>>>>>>>> Melbourne/Australia feel about sending up an iconic >>>>>>>>>> Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?" >>>>>>>>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm >>>>>>>>>> sure your knowledge of history, theology and languages is >>>>>>>>>> better than mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a >>>>>>>>>> small picture of a saint or other venerated person. My >>>>>>>>>> question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an >>>>>>>>>> ignorant, bumbling fool? >>>>>>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ >>>>>>>>> and the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a >>>>>>>>> particular group of people might be a venerated symbol of >>>>>>>>> popular culture. I don't have any complaints about the quoted >>>>>>>>> example or the person who wrote it. >>>>>>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? >>>>>>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter the >>>>>>> truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it. >>>>>> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original >>>>>> piece? >>>>> Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for >>>>> defamation. >>>> And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of NSW. >>> On what possible ground? Why would the Law society be interested?
>>> Sylvia.
>> Presumably for practicing law without a license or whatever. Tell 'em >> you were just practising, not practicing. That confuses most people >> born after 1970 enough to make them leave one alone.
> Well in any case, anyone can express views about the law, and even > advise other people. What they cannot do without recognised > qualification and licensing, is charge for their service.
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:54:10 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: > > Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > >> On Oct 14, 4:46 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote: > >>> Horry wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>> Horry wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>> Horry wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia, > >>>>>>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: > >>>>>>>>>> "Let's get the analogy right and ask how would > >>>>>>>>>> Melbourne/Australia feel about sending up an iconic > >>>>>>>>>> Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?" > >>>>>>>>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm > >>>>>>>>>> sure your knowledge of history, theology and languages is > >>>>>>>>>> better than mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a > >>>>>>>>>> small picture of a saint or other venerated person. My > >>>>>>>>>> question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an > >>>>>>>>>> ignorant, bumbling fool? > >>>>>>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ > >>>>>>>>> and the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a > >>>>>>>>> particular group of people might be a venerated symbol of > >>>>>>>>> popular culture. I don't have any complaints about the quoted > >>>>>>>>> example or the person who wrote it. > >>>>>>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? > >>>>>>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter the > >>>>>>> truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it. > >>>>>> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original > >>>>>> piece? > >>>>> Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for > >>>>> defamation. > >>>> And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of NSW. > >>> On what possible ground? Why would the Law society be interested?
> >>> Sylvia.
> >> Presumably for practicing law without a license or whatever. Tell 'em > >> you were just practising, not practicing. That confuses most people > >> born after 1970 enough to make them leave one alone.
> > Well in any case, anyone can express views about the law, and even > > advise other people. What they cannot do without recognised > > qualification and licensing, is charge for their service.
> Precisely. <sighs AT the moron>
Does sending people PayPal requests for $2.99 really count as charging for a service, Horry?
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:33:47 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > On Oct 14, 9:50 pm, Horry <horacewach...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:54:10 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >> > Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >> >> On Oct 14, 4:46 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote: >> >>> Horry wrote: >> >>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>>>> Horry wrote: >> >>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >>>>>>> Horry wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia, >> >>>>>>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: >> >>>>>>>>>> "Let's get the analogy right and ask how would >> >>>>>>>>>> Melbourne/Australia feel about sending up an iconic >> >>>>>>>>>> Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?" I believe that >> >>>>>>>>>> the origin of the expression is theological. I'm sure your >> >>>>>>>>>> knowledge of history, theology and languages is better than >> >>>>>>>>>> mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small >> >>>>>>>>>> picture of a saint or other venerated person. My question: >> >>>>>>>>>> If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an ignorant, >> >>>>>>>>>> bumbling fool? >> >>>>>>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as >> >>>>>>>>> Christ and the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of >> >>>>>>>>> Christianity, so a particular group of people might be a >> >>>>>>>>> venerated symbol of popular culture. I don't have any >> >>>>>>>>> complaints about the quoted example or the person who wrote >> >>>>>>>>> it. >> >>>>>>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? >> >>>>>>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter >> >>>>>>> the truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it. >> >>>>>> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original >> >>>>>> piece? >> >>>>> Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for >> >>>>> defamation. >> >>>> And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of >> >>>> NSW. >> >>> On what possible ground? Why would the Law society be interested?
>> >>> Sylvia.
>> >> Presumably for practicing law without a license or whatever. Tell >> >> 'em you were just practising, not practicing. That confuses most >> >> people born after 1970 enough to make them leave one alone.
>> > Well in any case, anyone can express views about the law, and even >> > advise other people. What they cannot do without recognised >> > qualification and licensing, is charge for their service.
>> Precisely. <sighs AT the moron>
> Does sending people PayPal requests for $2.99 really count as charging > for a service, Horry?
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:33:47 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > > On Oct 14, 9:50 pm, Horry <horacewach...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:54:10 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > >> >> On Oct 14, 4:46 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote: > >> >>> Horry wrote: > >> >>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> >>>>> Horry wrote: > >> >>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> >>>>>>> Horry wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia, > >> >>>>>>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: > >> >>>>>>>>>> "Let's get the analogy right and ask how would > >> >>>>>>>>>> Melbourne/Australia feel about sending up an iconic > >> >>>>>>>>>> Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?" I believe that > >> >>>>>>>>>> the origin of the expression is theological. I'm sure your > >> >>>>>>>>>> knowledge of history, theology and languages is better than > >> >>>>>>>>>> mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small > >> >>>>>>>>>> picture of a saint or other venerated person. My question: > >> >>>>>>>>>> If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an ignorant, > >> >>>>>>>>>> bumbling fool? > >> >>>>>>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as > >> >>>>>>>>> Christ and the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of > >> >>>>>>>>> Christianity, so a particular group of people might be a > >> >>>>>>>>> venerated symbol of popular culture. I don't have any > >> >>>>>>>>> complaints about the quoted example or the person who wrote > >> >>>>>>>>> it. > >> >>>>>>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? > >> >>>>>>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter > >> >>>>>>> the truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it. > >> >>>>>> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original > >> >>>>>> piece? > >> >>>>> Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for > >> >>>>> defamation. > >> >>>> And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of > >> >>>> NSW. > >> >>> On what possible ground? Why would the Law society be interested?
> >> >>> Sylvia.
> >> >> Presumably for practicing law without a license or whatever. Tell > >> >> 'em you were just practising, not practicing. That confuses most > >> >> people born after 1970 enough to make them leave one alone.
> >> > Well in any case, anyone can express views about the law, and even > >> > advise other people. What they cannot do without recognised > >> > qualification and licensing, is charge for their service.
> >> Precisely. <sighs AT the moron>
> > Does sending people PayPal requests for $2.99 really count as charging > > for a service, Horry?
> Yes.
> Why wouldn't it?
Because it's the interwebs - it's all harmless japery. Next you'll be arguing those friendly, jestful death threats people routinely issue on usenet constitute real threats.
Horry wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:54:10 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>> On Oct 14, 4:46 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote: >>>> Horry wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> Horry wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> Horry wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia, >>>>>>>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: >>>>>>>>>>> "Let's get the analogy right and ask how would >>>>>>>>>>> Melbourne/Australia feel about sending up an iconic >>>>>>>>>>> Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?" >>>>>>>>>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm >>>>>>>>>>> sure your knowledge of history, theology and languages is >>>>>>>>>>> better than mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a >>>>>>>>>>> small picture of a saint or other venerated person. My >>>>>>>>>>> question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an >>>>>>>>>>> ignorant, bumbling fool? >>>>>>>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ >>>>>>>>>> and the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a >>>>>>>>>> particular group of people might be a venerated symbol of >>>>>>>>>> popular culture. I don't have any complaints about the quoted >>>>>>>>>> example or the person who wrote it. >>>>>>>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? >>>>>>>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter the >>>>>>>> truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it. >>>>>>> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original >>>>>>> piece? >>>>>> Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for >>>>>> defamation. >>>>> And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of NSW. >>>> On what possible ground? Why would the Law society be interested?
>>>> Sylvia. >>> Presumably for practicing law without a license or whatever. Tell 'em >>> you were just practising, not practicing. That confuses most people >>> born after 1970 enough to make them leave one alone. >> Well in any case, anyone can express views about the law, and even >> advise other people. What they cannot do without recognised >> qualification and licensing, is charge for their service.
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:53:35 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: > Horry wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:54:10 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>> On Oct 14, 4:46 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote: >>>>> Horry wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> Horry wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>> Horry wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia, >>>>>>>>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: >>>>>>>>>>>> "Let's get the analogy right and ask how would >>>>>>>>>>>> Melbourne/Australia feel about sending up an iconic >>>>>>>>>>>> Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?" I believe that >>>>>>>>>>>> the origin of the expression is theological. I'm sure your >>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge of history, theology and languages is better than >>>>>>>>>>>> mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture >>>>>>>>>>>> of a saint or other venerated person. My question: If a >>>>>>>>>>>> person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an ignorant, >>>>>>>>>>>> bumbling fool? >>>>>>>>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as >>>>>>>>>>> Christ and the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of >>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, so a particular group of people might be a >>>>>>>>>>> venerated symbol of popular culture. I don't have any >>>>>>>>>>> complaints about the quoted example or the person who wrote >>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? >>>>>>>>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter >>>>>>>>> the truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it. >>>>>>>> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original >>>>>>>> piece? >>>>>>> Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for >>>>>>> defamation. >>>>>> And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of NSW. >>>>> On what possible ground? Why would the Law society be interested?
>>>>> Sylvia. >>>> Presumably for practicing law without a license or whatever. Tell 'em >>>> you were just practising, not practicing. That confuses most people >>>> born after 1970 enough to make them leave one alone. >>> Well in any case, anyone can express views about the law, and even >>> advise other people. What they cannot do without recognised >>> qualification and licensing, is charge for their service.
>> Precisely. <sighs AT the moron>
> I am not charging.
You've indicated that you'll accept a cut of any money received.
Horry wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:53:35 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Horry wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:54:10 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>>> On Oct 14, 4:46 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote: >>>>>> Horry wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:46 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> Horry wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:46:14 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Horry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:27:30 +1100, DavidW wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Let's get the analogy right and ask how would >>>>>>>>>>>>> Melbourne/Australia feel about sending up an iconic >>>>>>>>>>>>> Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical group?" I believe that >>>>>>>>>>>>> the origin of the expression is theological. I'm sure your >>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge of history, theology and languages is better than >>>>>>>>>>>>> mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture >>>>>>>>>>>>> of a saint or other venerated person. My question: If a >>>>>>>>>>>>> person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an ignorant, >>>>>>>>>>>>> bumbling fool? >>>>>>>>>>>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as >>>>>>>>>>>> Christ and the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of >>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity, so a particular group of people might be a >>>>>>>>>>>> venerated symbol of popular culture. I don't have any >>>>>>>>>>>> complaints about the quoted example or the person who wrote >>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>> What if I told you 'the person who wrote it' was a paedophile? >>>>>>>>>> Then he might start to have some complaints. It wouldn't alter >>>>>>>>>> the truth of what he wrote at the time he wrote it. >>>>>>>>> What if I told YOU that DavidW was the author of the original >>>>>>>>> piece? >>>>>>>> Then I'd be advising David to start proceedings against you for >>>>>>>> defamation. >>>>>>> And I'D be reporting the Else-Foot group to the Law Society of NSW. >>>>>> On what possible ground? Why would the Law society be interested?
>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> Presumably for practicing law without a license or whatever. Tell 'em >>>>> you were just practising, not practicing. That confuses most people >>>>> born after 1970 enough to make them leave one alone. >>>> Well in any case, anyone can express views about the law, and even >>>> advise other people. What they cannot do without recognised >>>> qualification and licensing, is charge for their service. >>> Precisely. <sighs AT the moron> >> I am not charging.
> You've indicated that you'll accept a cut of any money received.
Charging for a service involves some sort of contractual arrangement. There is none between me and the fund that allegedly accepts payments from people who ask me questions, and equally allegedly passes on a fraction of those payments to me.
Further, you should note that the conditional advice to David to start proceedings against you was in any case not a response to question about the law, and therefore no payment for it can be anticipated.
Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: > On Oct 14, 5:27 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: >> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote: >>> Sylvia,
>>> Here is an example in which the expression "iconic" is used: "Let's >>> get the analogy right and ask how would Melbourne/Australia feel >>> about sending up an iconic Aboriginal/Greek/Slavic/Asian musical >>> group?"
>>> I believe that the origin of the expression is theological. I'm sure >>> your knowledge of history, theology and languages is better than >>> mine, but my understanding is that an icon is a small picture of a >>> saint or other venerated person.
>>> My question: If a person uses "iconic" to mean famous, is he an >>> ignorant, bumbling fool?
>> Words can be, and often are, used metaphorically. Just as Christ and >> the Virgin Mary are venerated symbols of Christianity, so a >> particular group of people might be a venerated symbol of popular >> culture. I don't have any complaints about the quoted example or the >> person who wrote it.
> You appear to have trouble differentiating between a reference and its > referent. The icon is the small picture, not the person depicted in > the picture.
I was well aware of that. I just hoped no one would notice.
> You could, in populist abusage, broaden venerated person > to any famous person, such as the famous paedophile Michael Jackson. > You could also broaden the meaning of small picture to include > somewhat larger pictures, say poster-sized. So a wall poster of the > famous paedophile Michael Jackson could, at a stretch, be called an > icon. But Michael Jackson is not an icon.
> Now you say that a person, or even a group of people, can be > 'symbolic' of some greater, abstract movement. Such that the infamous > Michael Jackson could be symbolic of the problem of paedophilia > generally. With that I agree. But the essential point of an icon is > that it is *not* a symbolic representation of anything, but rather a > realistic representation of a particular person.
> Equating 'iconic' with 'symbolic' is akin to the over-excited news > reporters who confuse literal and virtual explosions, saying of a > child with ADHD, "He literally exploded".
'Iconic' as it's commonly used means more than 'symbolic'. This is obvious if you try 'symbolic' instead of 'iconic'. The veneration aspect is lacking.
Look, it would probably be possible to argue, one way or another, for 'iconic' as I used it (e.g., many people probably admire Michael Jackson sufficiently to have the equivalent of icons of him; therefore, he is iconic), but I confess that in a low moment I simply repeated the cliché-like usage that I keep seeing. Shameful, but it's happened and I can't undo it.
|
