 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In America, the name "Delilah" is apparently *8 times* more common than
the name "Gemma".
Which is odd really, considering that there are millions of people
called Gemma (I've personally met at least a dozen of them), and nobody
in history has ever been named Delilah (except in that song...)
Or perhaps it's just because we're talking about America? Apparently
about 30 years ago, "Brandy" was a very popular name...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Which is odd really, considering that there are millions of people
> called Gemma (I've personally met at least a dozen of them), and nobody
> in history has ever been named Delilah (except in that song...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delilah is not a reference to the song. As
for history . . .
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have never heard of anyone named Gemma before.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/29/2009 7:05 AM, Invisible wrote:
> In America, the name "Delilah" is apparently *8 times* more common than
> the name "Gemma".
>
> Which is odd really, considering that there are millions of people
> called Gemma (I've personally met at least a dozen of them), and nobody
> in history has ever been named Delilah (except in that song...)
>
> Or perhaps it's just because we're talking about America? Apparently
> about 30 years ago, "Brandy" was a very popular name...
Americans like to pick the most obscure names from the Bible. That way
there's no chance anyone can mistake them for a Jew.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:05:33 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Which is odd really, considering that there are millions of people
> called Gemma (I've personally met at least a dozen of them), and nobody
> in history has ever been named Delilah (except in that song...)
There's rather well-known Delilah in the Bible......
Conversely, I have never actually met someone with the name Gemma (I've e-
mailed one person with that name - someone at work - but I've never met
her).
So I could make a converse claim - that nobody in history has ever been
named Gemma. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:02:15 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> On 10/29/2009 7:05 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> In America, the name "Delilah" is apparently *8 times* more common than
>> the name "Gemma".
>>
>> Which is odd really, considering that there are millions of people
>> called Gemma (I've personally met at least a dozen of them), and nobody
>> in history has ever been named Delilah (except in that song...)
>>
>> Or perhaps it's just because we're talking about America? Apparently
>> about 30 years ago, "Brandy" was a very popular name...
>
> Americans like to pick the most obscure names from the Bible. That way
> there's no chance anyone can mistake them for a Jew.
Well, except for the Jewish Americans. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/30/2009 1:03 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Americans like to pick the most obscure names from the Bible. That way
>> there's no chance anyone can mistake them for a Jew.
>
> Well, except for the Jewish Americans. ;-)
>
> Jim
And Catholics. I forgot them.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:13:59 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> On 10/30/2009 1:03 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Americans like to pick the most obscure names from the Bible. That way
>>> there's no chance anyone can mistake them for a Jew.
>>
>> Well, except for the Jewish Americans. ;-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> And Catholics. I forgot them.
>
> Mike
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> There's rather well-known Delilah in the Bible......
Sure. But she's not a real person. ;-)
> So I could make a converse claim - that nobody in history has ever been
> named Gemma. ;-)
Heh, well, maybe it's only popular in the UK.
On the other hand, most people have names like "Sarah" which
(apparently) means "princess". Naming your daughter Delilah is... hell,
why not go the whole hog and name her "Satan" or something? :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:55:03 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Naming your daughter Delilah is... hell, why not go the whole hog and
> name her "Satan" or something? :-P
Apparently, some people have tried. I could not immediately find a link to
that particular incident, but these are somewhat related:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6937327.stm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/13/2009-01-13_report_child_named_adolf_hitler_removed_.html
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Naming your daughter Delilah is... hell, why not go the whole hog and
>> name her "Satan" or something? :-P
>
> Apparently, some people have tried. I could not immediately find a link
> to that particular incident, but these are somewhat related:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6937327.stm
Oh dear God help us all...
>
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/13/2009-01-13_report_child_named_adolf_hitler_removed_.html
...my God, just when you thought it couldn't get worse...
(Giving your child an unusual name is one thing. Pretending that a band
of people didn't do something horrifyingly evil is another. And
decorating your home with the bannar of said people is another thing
again. WTF?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/13/2009-01-13_report_child_named_adolf_hitler_removed_.html
Three children are forcefully removed from their parents because one of
the children was named in a certain way? Where are the human rights
commissions?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:46:42 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> Oh dear God help us all...
I am not sure he will be of much help with this; he is probably too
occupied with his sports career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Shammgod
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Three children are forcefully removed from their parents because one of
> the children was named in a certain way? Where are the human rights
> commissions?
More like three children removed because their house is decorated with
Swastikas.
But seriously, from this distance it's impossible to tell whether the
authorities did they because they don't like the beliefs of the family,
or because the family has actually been doing something more serious.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:04:48 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> Three children are forcefully removed from their parents because one of
> the children was named in a certain way? Where are the human rights
> commissions?
All of the children had Nazi-related names. Also, "Heath reportedly denies
the Holocaust and their home is decorated with swastikas".
It is difficult to find detailed information about the case, but a
neighbor is quoted in this article:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6648877
I strongly doubt the authorities did not have more to go on than just the
names.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Three children are forcefully removed from their parents because one of
> the children was named in a certain way?
I suspect it was not just because of the name.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:04:48 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >
> > Three children are forcefully removed from their parents because one of
> > the children was named in a certain way? Where are the human rights
> > commissions?
> All of the children had Nazi-related names. Also, "Heath reportedly denies
> the Holocaust and their home is decorated with swastikas".
I'm not questioning the rationality of the act. I'm questioning its
legality and constitutionality.
Is there a codified law in the United States which states that if
parents have the "wrong" political opinion, decorate their home with
the "wrong" symbols and name their children with the "wrong" names,
it's ok to take the children away?
If the answer is no, then no matter how horrible the situation might be,
taking the children away is illegal, unconstitutional and against basic
human rights.
In a free, constitutional country you cannot be punished because of
having the wrong political opinions or decorating your home with the
wrong symbols. That's the whole point in freedom. When you start having
Orwellian thought crimes (either de jure or, as seems to be in this case,
de facto), you are eroding the very foundation of constitutional freedom
of opinion.
This can also very quickly become a bad double standard: People who have
the "wrong" opinions are punished, for political reasons, while other people
are not, even though the actual *harm* being done might be same (or even
worse with some people who are not punished because the punishment would be
politically incorrect).
For example, if some extremist muslim participates in protest marches
advocating the destruction of the western world and praising terrorism,
does the police go and take his children away? No, because that would be
politically incorrect. In this case freedom of opinion and expression
applies over the mental health of the children.
If someone has nazi opinions and nazi symbols all over their home, does
the polic go and take his children away? It seems that yes. In this case
punishing people with nazi ideology is not politically incorrect and thus
acceptable.
That's a double standard.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Three children are forcefully removed from their parents because one of
>>> the children was named in a certain way? Where are the human rights
>>> commissions?
>
>> All of the children had Nazi-related names. Also, "Heath reportedly denies
>> the Holocaust and their home is decorated with swastikas".
>
> I'm not questioning the rationality of the act. I'm questioning its
> legality and constitutionality.
>
> Is there a codified law in the United States which states that if
> parents have the "wrong" political opinion, decorate their home with
> the "wrong" symbols and name their children with the "wrong" names,
> it's ok to take the children away?
>
> If the answer is no, then no matter how horrible the situation might be,
> taking the children away is illegal, unconstitutional and against basic
> human rights.
I think this was done because of something in addition to the political
views.
But, as I say, we're too far away to be able to say with any certainty.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Is there a codified law in the United States which states that if
> parents have the "wrong" political opinion, decorate their home with
> the "wrong" symbols and name their children with the "wrong" names,
> it's ok to take the children away?
No, but there's probably some general law that allows the authorities to
take away the children if their parents are not considered to be capable of
bringing up the child in a suitable manner. Or some grey wooly wording like
that :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Is there a codified law in the United States which states that if
> > parents have the "wrong" political opinion, decorate their home with
> > the "wrong" symbols and name their children with the "wrong" names,
> > it's ok to take the children away?
> No, but there's probably some general law that allows the authorities to
> take away the children if their parents are not considered to be capable of
> bringing up the child in a suitable manner. Or some grey wooly wording like
> that :-)
Which then means that what is and isn't illegal depends on what happens
to be politically correct that month.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> No, but there's probably some general law that allows the authorities to
>> take away the children if their parents are not considered to be capable
>> of
>> bringing up the child in a suitable manner. Or some grey wooly wording
>> like
>> that :-)
>
> Which then means that what is and isn't illegal depends on what happens
> to be politically correct that month.
Exactly. There are lots of laws like that, for example in the UK there is
"careless and inconsiderate driving" and "dangerous driving". Obviously
they are open to massive interpretation, some people get a fine for eating
an apple in their car, whilst others can go 20 mph over the speed limit in
bad conditions and not be stopped. Life's unfair like that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> But seriously, from this distance it's impossible to tell whether the
> authorities did they because they don't like the beliefs of the family,
> or because the family has actually been doing something more serious.
Well, the article claimed there were no reports of abuse or anything. It's
probably because the authorities thought the parents were doing bad by their
kids by teaching them that extreme racism is a good and acceptable thing.
I disagree that the kids should be taken away for that, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Is there a codified law in the United States which states that if
> parents have the "wrong" political opinion, decorate their home with
> the "wrong" symbols and name their children with the "wrong" names,
> it's ok to take the children away?
You can take them away for being "abusive" or "negligent." But like all
squishy laws, this one looks like it's being abused.
You can also arrest someone for "disorderly conduct" or "being a public
nuisance." Those types of laws also get abused.
> In a free, constitutional country you cannot be punished because of
> having the wrong political opinions or decorating your home with the
> wrong symbols. That's the whole point in freedom. When you start having
> Orwellian thought crimes (either de jure or, as seems to be in this case,
> de facto), you are eroding the very foundation of constitutional freedom
> of opinion.
Agreed.
> If someone has nazi opinions and nazi symbols all over their home, does
> the polic go and take his children away? It seems that yes.
It could be just one over-enthusiastic asshole working in an
otherwise-valuable job. Just like one cop beating the crap out of someone
innocent doesn't mean cops should never use force to arrest a suspected
criminal.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Which then means that what is and isn't illegal depends on what happens
> to be politically correct that month.
More like what one particular state employee feels like doing that day. It's
entirely possible the person who took them away is getting disapproval from
his/her coworkers, too.
Remember that you'd likely never have heard of this 30 years ago, and that
if the situation winds up with the accuser getting reprimanded and the kids
being returned, you'll likely not hear of that either.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:55:03 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> There's rather well-known Delilah in the Bible......
>
> Sure. But she's not a real person. ;-)
That's debatable.....mythologies tend to have a basis in reality.
>> So I could make a converse claim - that nobody in history has ever been
>> named Gemma. ;-)
>
> Heh, well, maybe it's only popular in the UK.
I know nobody in the UK with the name either, I think the one I've e-
mailed is in one of the northern European countries, maybe the
Netherlands, but probably more likely in Germany now I think about it.
> On the other hand, most people have names like "Sarah" which
> (apparently) means "princess". Naming your daughter Delilah is... hell,
> why not go the whole hog and name her "Satan" or something? :-P
I'm sure you'd find some people who are named Satan out there. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Which then means that what is and isn't illegal depends on what happens
>> to be politically correct that month.
>
> More like what one particular state employee feels like doing that day.
> It's entirely possible the person who took them away is getting
> disapproval from his/her coworkers, too.
>
> Remember that you'd likely never have heard of this 30 years ago, and
> that if the situation winds up with the accuser getting reprimanded and
> the kids being returned, you'll likely not hear of that either.
>
Most cases of a child being removed from households never make the news.
And, sadly, it is very hard to get children away from abusive parents
for anything other than a short amount of time.
In some states* the child welfare folks will remove children from a home
upon the allegation that something untoward is going on. They, and the
police, then have a very short amount of time to show a judge that
something harmful to the child is taking place, or the kid gets returned
to their parents. The alternative to this is to allow a child to stay in
an abusive environment where the parents know they are being
investigated. At some point, it was codified into law that the first was
preferable to the latter.
It results in some humorous and some sad cases. I know of one case where
a girl called the police, saying her mother had kidnapped the girl's
daughter. Police show up, and take the baby away. Turns out the
grandmother was babysitting and told the daughter something she didn't
want to hear. In the same county, a baby died because, after being
taking from the parents for 48 hours several times on reports of child
endangerment or abuse, welfare workers could not make a solid case that
they would harm the baby and they did. If I remember the newspaper
correct, they were convicted years after the baby's death.
*Would say most, but I only know about a few.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/30/09 21:43, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Most cases of a child being removed from households never make the news.
> And, sadly, it is very hard to get children away from abusive parents
> for anything other than a short amount of time.
And sadly, CPS also takes away children who shouldn't be taken away.
Just thought I'd throw it in since we're speaking in generalities.
--
Ghosts are merely unsubstantiated roomers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/30/09 06:43, Warp wrote:
> Is there a codified law in the United States which states that if
> parents have the "wrong" political opinion, decorate their home with
> the "wrong" symbols and name their children with the "wrong" names,
> it's ok to take the children away?
For all I know, you're engaging in strawman arguments (perhaps
unintentionally).
--
Ghosts are merely unsubstantiated roomers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/30/09 06:04, Warp wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson<fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>>
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/13/2009-01-13_report_child_named_adolf_hitler_removed_.html
>
> Three children are forcefully removed from their parents because one of
> the children was named in a certain way? Where are the human rights
> commissions?
Talk about jumping to conclusions after reading a random news article!
--
Ghosts are merely unsubstantiated roomers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/30/09 12:10, Darren New wrote:
>> But seriously, from this distance it's impossible to tell whether the
>> authorities did they because they don't like the beliefs of the
>> family, or because the family has actually been doing something more
>> serious.
>
> Well, the article claimed there were no reports of abuse or anything.
How often is that the case when CPS is involved? That there were no
reports of abuse really does not tell us much about why they were taken
away.
--
Ghosts are merely unsubstantiated roomers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > If someone has nazi opinions and nazi symbols all over their home, does
> > the polic go and take his children away? It seems that yes.
> It could be just one over-enthusiastic asshole working in an
> otherwise-valuable job. Just like one cop beating the crap out of someone
> innocent doesn't mean cops should never use force to arrest a suspected
> criminal.
Note that I'm not in theory against removing children from parents who
teach them destructive values (such as theories about the inherent
inferiority of some people and the superiority of others). However, it's
a fine line between child protection and totalitarianism, where wrong
political opinions are illegal.
Also, as I said, such actions very easily (if not even inevitably) lead
to double standards, where some destructive political or religious opinions
are tolerated (in the name of political correctness, multiculturalism, or
whatever might be the latest trend) while other similar (or even less
destructive) opinions aren't.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's a double standard.
Protip: we live in a world full of double standards.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/30/2009 6:46 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Naming your daughter Delilah is... hell, why not go the whole hog and
>>> name her "Satan" or something? :-P
>>
>> Apparently, some people have tried. I could not immediately find a
>> link to that particular incident, but these are somewhat related:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6937327.stm
>
> Oh dear God help us all...
>
>>
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/13/2009-01-13_report_child_named_adolf_hitler_removed_.html
>
>
> ...my God, just when you thought it couldn't get worse...
>
> (Giving your child an unusual name is one thing. Pretending that a band
> of people didn't do something horrifyingly evil is another. And
> decorating your home with the bannar of said people is another thing
> again. WTF?)
What do you mean? Doesn't everyone have a swastika as part of their
monogram printed on stationery?
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 10/30/09 12:10, Darren New wrote:
>>> But seriously, from this distance it's impossible to tell whether the
>>> authorities did they because they don't like the beliefs of the
>>> family, or because the family has actually been doing something more
>>> serious.
>>
>> Well, the article claimed there were no reports of abuse or anything.
>
> How often is that the case when CPS is involved?
I don't know. I'd guess it's not very common for CPS to get involved if
nobody calls them to say there's a problem.
My sister-in-law works for CPS. I'll ask her when I see her how it works.
> That there were no
> reports of abuse really does not tell us much about why they were taken
> away.
They were taken away because they tried to register "Adolph Hitler Smith"
for school, I'm guessing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/01/09 12:04, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 10/30/09 12:10, Darren New wrote:
>>>> But seriously, from this distance it's impossible to tell whether the
>>>> authorities did they because they don't like the beliefs of the
>>>> family, or because the family has actually been doing something more
>>>> serious.
>>>
>>> Well, the article claimed there were no reports of abuse or anything.
>>
>> How often is that the case when CPS is involved?
>
> I don't know. I'd guess it's not very common for CPS to get involved if
> nobody calls them to say there's a problem.
>
> My sister-in-law works for CPS. I'll ask her when I see her how it works.
I think you missed my point (or I misread the article - too lazy to
reread). CPS didn't say there had been no reports. The *police* said it.
That doesn't mean that no one reported stuff to CPS.
So my question was how often does that happen - where CPS are alerted
but the police aren't (prior to CPS getting involved)?
>> That there were no reports of abuse really does not tell us much about
>> why they were taken away.
>
> They were taken away because they tried to register "Adolph Hitler
> Smith" for school, I'm guessing.
Although I really hate the common bandying of the phrase, I feel it is
appropriate here:
Correlation does not imply causation. (Although it wouldn't surprise me
if that is the reason).
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=7071764
Up till that point, CPS hadn't publicly commented. The father is
certain it's because of the name, but at the end of the article he
mentions that the state was relying on accusations made against him by a
neighbor and an ex-wife of abuse.
--
People who don't eat yogurt are uncultured.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> That doesn't mean that no one reported stuff to CPS.
Oh. OK.
>> They were taken away because they tried to register "Adolph Hitler
>> Smith" for school, I'm guessing.
>
> Correlation does not imply causation. (Although it wouldn't surprise me
> if that is the reason).
I just meant that it would have been the school who might have reported it
to CPS, *if* it was the name causing the trouble. I'm pretty certain CPS
doesn't just come into random homes and take kids away just in case, so
someone must have said something.
> mentions that the state was relying on accusations made against him by a
> neighbor and an ex-wife of abuse.
Could be.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > That's a double standard.
> Protip: we live in a world full of double standards.
That doesn't mean we should be happy about it, or stop thriving towards a
society with less of them.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/09 10:16, Darren New wrote:
>> Correlation does not imply causation. (Although it wouldn't surprise
>> me if that is the reason).
>
> I just meant that it would have been the school who might have reported
> it to CPS, *if* it was the name causing the trouble. I'm pretty certain
> CPS doesn't just come into random homes and take kids away just in case,
> so someone must have said something.
I'm sure someone said something. The point of contention was whether
that "something" was merely the name, or something worse.
And it was related to a birthday cake at a store - not a school. In
fact, they simply went to another store and got the cake made there.
--
People who don't eat yogurt are uncultured.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Which is odd really, considering that there are millions of people
> called Gemma (I've personally met at least a dozen of them), and nobody
> in history has ever been named Delilah (except in that song...)
You *always* do that. Generalize things you have seen with "that's how the
entire world is".
If you've never seen X, then X doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Right.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Which is odd really, considering that there are millions of people
>> called Gemma (I've personally met at least a dozen of them), and nobody
>> in history has ever been named Delilah (except in that song...)
>
> You *always* do that. Generalize things you have seen with "that's how the
> entire world is".
>
> If you've never seen X, then X doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Right.
I was actually exaggerating slightly. I didn't mean that literally
nobody in the history of the Earth has been called Delilah, merely that
it's feakishly rare to have such a name.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
.
>
> I was actually exaggerating slightly. I didn't mean that literally
> nobody in the history of the Earth has been called Delilah, merely that
> it's feakishly rare to have such a name.
>
I don’t think anyone except the most literal of us thought that. We were
just having fun ;)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
