NCGatorBait
VN GURU
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Messages
- 9,800
- Likes
- 0
Urban Myth Countdown
- Thread starter BeltwayVol
- Start date
BeltwayVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
- Likes
- 4
BeltwayVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
- Likes
- 4
Claim: A penny placed on the tracks will derail a train.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]
I smashed a penny on the railroad tie last Friday, and was advised by someone that I could have derailed the train. I've heard this before, and I think it could be an urban legend, but wasn't sure.
Origins: Kids have placed pennies on train tracks almost as long as there have been trains and pennies. Our grandparents left pennies on streetcar tracks in the hopes that passing streetcars would flatten the coins, rendering them into good luck pieces.
Has leaving a penny on the tracks ever resulted in the derailment of a train? If it has, I've been unable locate mentions of such accidents. What has resulted, however, are the deaths of those who've engaged in the practice. Doesn't happen often, but it has happened enough that such an outcome remains a very real possibility.
In 1992, Rolyn J. St. Louis (45), a homeless man in Columbus, Ohio, died while pennying the tracks. He'd placed a penny on one set of tracks, then stood on another, unaware that the oncoming train he'd heard was coming down the set he was standing on.
In 1997, Shelly Lynn Wice (14) and Jessica Ann Hart (14), two teens from Oil City, Pennsylvania, died in similar fashion. They were standing on one set of tracks watching for a train to flatten the pennies they'd left on another set of rails, when a train took both of them. One girl died at the scene; the other died a few hours later in hospital.
In 1986, Laura Ann Foote (18) of Chico, California, didn't get out of the way of an oncoming train quickly enough the train flattened her and her penny.
In 1996, Bruce Darling (25), a father of two, was hit full on by an InterCity train travelling at 110 mph at the Cramlington station in Northumberland, England. He'd been trying to flatten pennies after getting the idea while drinking with friends.
Pennying the tracks can result in a further danger sometimes those coins shoot out from under the train's wheels at incredible speeds, turning them into potentially deadly little projectiles.
Leaving items other than pennies on railroad tracks has caused trains to derail, though. In July 1999, three Indiana youngsters were charged with having caused the South Shore passenger train to jump the tracks in Michigan City after they placed a brick on the tracks. No injuries resulted, but that was more due to luck than anything else. The derailment of a six-car passenger train isn't exactly something to sneeze at.
Kids have always done oddball things, some more risky than others. Flattening pennies on railroad tracks is an ancient practice, so cautions against it are not likely to bring about its end. Yet it's worth driving home to souvenir-minded youngsters that it's always right to be extra special careful when playing around trains.
26 Days Until Tennessee "Derails" Florida and Exposes Their Urban Myth.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]
I smashed a penny on the railroad tie last Friday, and was advised by someone that I could have derailed the train. I've heard this before, and I think it could be an urban legend, but wasn't sure.
Origins: Kids have placed pennies on train tracks almost as long as there have been trains and pennies. Our grandparents left pennies on streetcar tracks in the hopes that passing streetcars would flatten the coins, rendering them into good luck pieces.
Has leaving a penny on the tracks ever resulted in the derailment of a train? If it has, I've been unable locate mentions of such accidents. What has resulted, however, are the deaths of those who've engaged in the practice. Doesn't happen often, but it has happened enough that such an outcome remains a very real possibility.
In 1992, Rolyn J. St. Louis (45), a homeless man in Columbus, Ohio, died while pennying the tracks. He'd placed a penny on one set of tracks, then stood on another, unaware that the oncoming train he'd heard was coming down the set he was standing on.
In 1997, Shelly Lynn Wice (14) and Jessica Ann Hart (14), two teens from Oil City, Pennsylvania, died in similar fashion. They were standing on one set of tracks watching for a train to flatten the pennies they'd left on another set of rails, when a train took both of them. One girl died at the scene; the other died a few hours later in hospital.
In 1986, Laura Ann Foote (18) of Chico, California, didn't get out of the way of an oncoming train quickly enough the train flattened her and her penny.
In 1996, Bruce Darling (25), a father of two, was hit full on by an InterCity train travelling at 110 mph at the Cramlington station in Northumberland, England. He'd been trying to flatten pennies after getting the idea while drinking with friends.
Pennying the tracks can result in a further danger sometimes those coins shoot out from under the train's wheels at incredible speeds, turning them into potentially deadly little projectiles.
Leaving items other than pennies on railroad tracks has caused trains to derail, though. In July 1999, three Indiana youngsters were charged with having caused the South Shore passenger train to jump the tracks in Michigan City after they placed a brick on the tracks. No injuries resulted, but that was more due to luck than anything else. The derailment of a six-car passenger train isn't exactly something to sneeze at.
Kids have always done oddball things, some more risky than others. Flattening pennies on railroad tracks is an ancient practice, so cautions against it are not likely to bring about its end. Yet it's worth driving home to souvenir-minded youngsters that it's always right to be extra special careful when playing around trains.
26 Days Until Tennessee "Derails" Florida and Exposes Their Urban Myth.
Wittenfan2002
Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 41
- Likes
- 0
IBleedOrange24/7
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,527
- Likes
- 0
Add that with this and well?
Nearly as troubling to the Gators, Meyer removed the large replica gator head that was on display between the locker room and Florida Field. Players typically rub the head for good luck before games.
Players eventually regained access to the locker room and were allowed to wear Gator gear again. But the gator head is still missing - quite possibly a motivational ploy Meyer is saving for the Sept. 3 season opener against Wyoming.
``He knows how to push players' buttons,'' offensive coordinator Dan Mullen says. ``He gets the team to believe in what we do. The offense never puts the defense in a bad situation. The defense never put the offense in a bad situation. The special teams are always leading the country.
``He's kind of the puppet master to get all of that intertwined and get that psychological approach to the game.''
The approach will continue, too.
Meyer plans to use other stimulants during the season, like referring to his team's biggest rival only by its locale. At Bowling Green, he referred to Toledo as ``the team up north.'' At Utah, Brigham Young University was ``the team down south.''
He also had players stomp on BYU jerseys before the game and had BYU stickers placed in locker room urinals.
Now thats class and head coaching material for the SEC, He missed his calling as a staff sgt Drill instructor, Army training grounds USA. His wake up call in the SEC comes early just as it does to the new recruits.
Nearly as troubling to the Gators, Meyer removed the large replica gator head that was on display between the locker room and Florida Field. Players typically rub the head for good luck before games.
Players eventually regained access to the locker room and were allowed to wear Gator gear again. But the gator head is still missing - quite possibly a motivational ploy Meyer is saving for the Sept. 3 season opener against Wyoming.
``He knows how to push players' buttons,'' offensive coordinator Dan Mullen says. ``He gets the team to believe in what we do. The offense never puts the defense in a bad situation. The defense never put the offense in a bad situation. The special teams are always leading the country.
``He's kind of the puppet master to get all of that intertwined and get that psychological approach to the game.''
The approach will continue, too.
Meyer plans to use other stimulants during the season, like referring to his team's biggest rival only by its locale. At Bowling Green, he referred to Toledo as ``the team up north.'' At Utah, Brigham Young University was ``the team down south.''
He also had players stomp on BYU jerseys before the game and had BYU stickers placed in locker room urinals.
Now thats class and head coaching material for the SEC, He missed his calling as a staff sgt Drill instructor, Army training grounds USA. His wake up call in the SEC comes early just as it does to the new recruits.
BeltwayVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
- Likes
- 4
The tiny stars that appeared in or near the letter 'P' on the cover of Playboy from 1955 through 1979 were a code indicating how many times Hugh Hefner had bedded that month's centerfold.
Origins: The small stars that appeared on the Playboy cover were a distribution code used to designate the advertising regions for different editions of the magazine. The edition indicators used by Playboy for advertising purposes between 1955 and 1979 had no obvious meaning or purpose to the general public, and sometime during the 1960s the rumor began that they were a code indicating how many times Hefner had slept with the current centerfold or (on the assumption that Hef always slept with the centerfolds) his personal rating of how good a bed partner the playmate was. The stars usually appeared inside the letter 'P' on the cover but sometimes were outside of it, leading to a variation of the rumor positing that when the stars appeared on the outside, Hefner had failed in his attempts to bed that month's featured model. (The truth was that the stars were always printed in a dark color, so they were placed on whichever background was lighter: the letter 'P' in the masthead, or the cover just adjacent to the letter 'P'.)
Although the rumor was a bit silly, it certainly didn't stretch credulity too much to suggest that the rich and powerful bachelor publisher of the world's largest circulation men's magazine might employ "casting couch" techniques in choosing women to pose for his publication, or that he might brag about his conquests in a sly way.
25 Days Until The Vols "Star" Against Florida's New "Playboy" and Expose The Urban Myth.
Origins: The small stars that appeared on the Playboy cover were a distribution code used to designate the advertising regions for different editions of the magazine. The edition indicators used by Playboy for advertising purposes between 1955 and 1979 had no obvious meaning or purpose to the general public, and sometime during the 1960s the rumor began that they were a code indicating how many times Hefner had slept with the current centerfold or (on the assumption that Hef always slept with the centerfolds) his personal rating of how good a bed partner the playmate was. The stars usually appeared inside the letter 'P' on the cover but sometimes were outside of it, leading to a variation of the rumor positing that when the stars appeared on the outside, Hefner had failed in his attempts to bed that month's featured model. (The truth was that the stars were always printed in a dark color, so they were placed on whichever background was lighter: the letter 'P' in the masthead, or the cover just adjacent to the letter 'P'.)
Although the rumor was a bit silly, it certainly didn't stretch credulity too much to suggest that the rich and powerful bachelor publisher of the world's largest circulation men's magazine might employ "casting couch" techniques in choosing women to pose for his publication, or that he might brag about his conquests in a sly way.
25 Days Until The Vols "Star" Against Florida's New "Playboy" and Expose The Urban Myth.
NCGatorBait
VN GURU
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Messages
- 9,800
- Likes
- 0
BeltwayVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
- Likes
- 4
You know what I think is the funniest damn thing in the world about the Gator Nation calling CUM an Urban Legend?
What is an Urban Legend? It's pretty much a big ole lie that a bunch of people believe in, but never is proven to be true.
Hell, I think he IS an Urban Legend now that I think about it.
What is an Urban Legend? It's pretty much a big ole lie that a bunch of people believe in, but never is proven to be true.
Hell, I think he IS an Urban Legend now that I think about it.
NCGatorBait
VN GURU
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Messages
- 9,800
- Likes
- 0
BeltwayVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
- Likes
- 4
Claim: The word handicap came from 'cap in hand' and referred to the physically disabled's need to subsist as beggars in times past.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 1993]
History of the Word Handicapped
People have been saying "handicapped" for years. Since 1504, in fact.
In 1504, after a brutal war in England, King Henry VII had an idea. King Henry knew that the war had left his country with a great number of disabled veterans. And King Henry, who unfortunately had skipped his REELife Solutions [not a trademark, thank God] training session that morning, could not envision disabled veterans being able to hold a job, or contribute to society [sic].
So King Henry VII passed some landmark legislation. He proclaimed that begging in the streets be legal for people with disabilities. So into the streets, with their "cap in hand", went King Henry's disabled veterans, to beg for money.
And so originated the term "handicap".
"hand-in-cap"
Origins: Handicap is indeed an odd word in that it didn't pick up its 'physical disability' meaning until 1915 yet the word was in existence in 1653. The etymology quoted above which ties the word to 'cap in hand' is false; 'cap in hand' came into being via a different route, whereas handicap began as a shortening of 'hand in cap,' which is the other way around from what this fanciful tale would have us believe. (Those having momentary trouble grasping the importance of the term's reversal should spend a moment contemplating the difference between 'cathouse' and 'housecat.'
The evolution of handicap to include its 'physical disability' meaning took place over a number of centuries, and it is necessary to delve into the rules of 'hand-in-cap' (a lottery game from the 1600s) to gain an understanding of the original meaning of the word and how from those early beginnings it progressed to emcompass the myriad of meanings we now assign to it.
To play hand-in-cap required three people; two players and a referee. The game began with all three putting forfeit money into a cap, with ownership of this kitty to be decided by the outcome of the game. Each of the two players would then offer up an item he thought the other guy might want. The referee would inspect the items and assign a monetary value to the difference between the worth of the two things, thereby more or less equalizing the transaction. He who offered the lesser-valued item also had to pony up with the amount decreed by the referee.
Once this appraisal was completed, the two players would reach into their pockets to either draw out loose change or not, depending on whether they were happy with the proposed swap. (This change did not become part of the transaction over and above the appraisal fee; it was merely symbolic, representing a visual proof of the intent to "purchase" the other's goods.) If both drew out coins, the exchange was effected, and the referee took the forfeit money for himself. If neither drew out coins, the referee again took the forfeit money, though the exchange was not made. But if only one drew out coins, he was entitled to the forfeit money, even though again the exchange was not made.
Over time, the name of this game became shortened from hand-in-cap to hand i'cap, then handicap.
In time handicap came to grow beyond just being the name of a barter game; the word came to refer to any specific action that worked to make a contest more equitable. In the original game of 'hand-in-cap,' this equalization was effected by the owner of the less valuable item putting up an amount of cash to bring the worth of both sides of the proposed transaction into balance. In sports, this rebalancing was effected the other way, with the strong coming down to meet the weak. In horseracing, for example, since it wasn't possible to make slower horses faster, the equalization would be carried out by adding a weights under the saddle of the faster horse to bring its skill level down to that of the others. Likewise, the favorite in a foot race would handicapped by being made to start farther back than the others, or perhaps from the same starting point but only after the others had a head start.
Handicapping thus became a term for leveling out the field by making the stronger contestant(s) bear a penalty. A term which had made the jump from a game's name to 'way to equalize a contest' from there become synonymous with 'imposed impediment,' and then just 'impediment.'
Once again, the use of the word expanded -- handicap grew from being strictly a sporting term to cascade into the mainstream of the language. Divorced of its gaming associations, it came to mean 'a physical limitation,' an extension of its 'impediment' meaning.
A simple timeline of the word's development:
First seen in 1653, where it refers to the lottery game described above.
Sightings of it from 1754 show it used to describe horse races where the superior beast is made to carry extra weight to equalize the field.
By 1883, it has leaked from the sporting world into the mainstream of language, referring then to the larger concept of equalization itself.
The first use of the word in conjunction with the disabled appears in 1915, when it is applied to physically crippled children.
By the 1950s the term handicapped is extended to also cover adults and the mentally disabled.
At no point in the word's history does 'cap in hand' surface. As stated above, it developed by a different route. It also means something entirely different.
'Cap in hand' comes to us from the custom of uncovering the head as a sign of reverence, respect, or courtesy. Its earliest sighting dates to 1565 where it referred to a show of subservience made to a judge. Its shift from a sign of respect (similar to addressing a gentleman as "sir") to a term meaning 'to importune another for a favor' is less simple to date accurately. Its first clear use in this context occurs in 1887, but earlier Oxford English Dictionary entries could be parsed as supporting this meaning.
Nowadays 'cap in hand' has dropped its original meaning of 'a sign of reverence, respect, or courtesy' and has solely come to mean 'to humbly seek a favor.' (One is said to go 'cap in hand' to one's boss when asking for a raise, for instance.)
As to why some choose to believe in a proveably false etymology of handicap that asserts it has ties to the disabled having to subsist as beggars in times past, one can only speculate it has to do with recent abhorrence for handicapped as a description of the disabled. Some elements of current society choose to stress abilities over shortcomings, thus terms that identify the disabled as lacking something the abled possess have fallen out of favor with them. Handicapped is seen as offensive by some because it stresses the negative, possibly leading to a continued view of the disabled as less than worthy members of the human race. Likewise, disabled is also seen as offensive to some who prefer the more ability-positive term less abled.
What has this to do with a false etymology? Well, it's far easier to convince folks to eschew a word if it can be tied to an offensive image than it is to get them to swear it off based on mere preference for something else.
24 Days Until Tennessee Handicaps Florida's Urban Myth
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 1993]
History of the Word Handicapped
People have been saying "handicapped" for years. Since 1504, in fact.
In 1504, after a brutal war in England, King Henry VII had an idea. King Henry knew that the war had left his country with a great number of disabled veterans. And King Henry, who unfortunately had skipped his REELife Solutions [not a trademark, thank God] training session that morning, could not envision disabled veterans being able to hold a job, or contribute to society [sic].
So King Henry VII passed some landmark legislation. He proclaimed that begging in the streets be legal for people with disabilities. So into the streets, with their "cap in hand", went King Henry's disabled veterans, to beg for money.
And so originated the term "handicap".
"hand-in-cap"
Origins: Handicap is indeed an odd word in that it didn't pick up its 'physical disability' meaning until 1915 yet the word was in existence in 1653. The etymology quoted above which ties the word to 'cap in hand' is false; 'cap in hand' came into being via a different route, whereas handicap began as a shortening of 'hand in cap,' which is the other way around from what this fanciful tale would have us believe. (Those having momentary trouble grasping the importance of the term's reversal should spend a moment contemplating the difference between 'cathouse' and 'housecat.'
The evolution of handicap to include its 'physical disability' meaning took place over a number of centuries, and it is necessary to delve into the rules of 'hand-in-cap' (a lottery game from the 1600s) to gain an understanding of the original meaning of the word and how from those early beginnings it progressed to emcompass the myriad of meanings we now assign to it.
To play hand-in-cap required three people; two players and a referee. The game began with all three putting forfeit money into a cap, with ownership of this kitty to be decided by the outcome of the game. Each of the two players would then offer up an item he thought the other guy might want. The referee would inspect the items and assign a monetary value to the difference between the worth of the two things, thereby more or less equalizing the transaction. He who offered the lesser-valued item also had to pony up with the amount decreed by the referee.
Once this appraisal was completed, the two players would reach into their pockets to either draw out loose change or not, depending on whether they were happy with the proposed swap. (This change did not become part of the transaction over and above the appraisal fee; it was merely symbolic, representing a visual proof of the intent to "purchase" the other's goods.) If both drew out coins, the exchange was effected, and the referee took the forfeit money for himself. If neither drew out coins, the referee again took the forfeit money, though the exchange was not made. But if only one drew out coins, he was entitled to the forfeit money, even though again the exchange was not made.
Over time, the name of this game became shortened from hand-in-cap to hand i'cap, then handicap.
In time handicap came to grow beyond just being the name of a barter game; the word came to refer to any specific action that worked to make a contest more equitable. In the original game of 'hand-in-cap,' this equalization was effected by the owner of the less valuable item putting up an amount of cash to bring the worth of both sides of the proposed transaction into balance. In sports, this rebalancing was effected the other way, with the strong coming down to meet the weak. In horseracing, for example, since it wasn't possible to make slower horses faster, the equalization would be carried out by adding a weights under the saddle of the faster horse to bring its skill level down to that of the others. Likewise, the favorite in a foot race would handicapped by being made to start farther back than the others, or perhaps from the same starting point but only after the others had a head start.
Handicapping thus became a term for leveling out the field by making the stronger contestant(s) bear a penalty. A term which had made the jump from a game's name to 'way to equalize a contest' from there become synonymous with 'imposed impediment,' and then just 'impediment.'
Once again, the use of the word expanded -- handicap grew from being strictly a sporting term to cascade into the mainstream of the language. Divorced of its gaming associations, it came to mean 'a physical limitation,' an extension of its 'impediment' meaning.
A simple timeline of the word's development:
First seen in 1653, where it refers to the lottery game described above.
Sightings of it from 1754 show it used to describe horse races where the superior beast is made to carry extra weight to equalize the field.
By 1883, it has leaked from the sporting world into the mainstream of language, referring then to the larger concept of equalization itself.
The first use of the word in conjunction with the disabled appears in 1915, when it is applied to physically crippled children.
By the 1950s the term handicapped is extended to also cover adults and the mentally disabled.
At no point in the word's history does 'cap in hand' surface. As stated above, it developed by a different route. It also means something entirely different.
'Cap in hand' comes to us from the custom of uncovering the head as a sign of reverence, respect, or courtesy. Its earliest sighting dates to 1565 where it referred to a show of subservience made to a judge. Its shift from a sign of respect (similar to addressing a gentleman as "sir") to a term meaning 'to importune another for a favor' is less simple to date accurately. Its first clear use in this context occurs in 1887, but earlier Oxford English Dictionary entries could be parsed as supporting this meaning.
Nowadays 'cap in hand' has dropped its original meaning of 'a sign of reverence, respect, or courtesy' and has solely come to mean 'to humbly seek a favor.' (One is said to go 'cap in hand' to one's boss when asking for a raise, for instance.)
As to why some choose to believe in a proveably false etymology of handicap that asserts it has ties to the disabled having to subsist as beggars in times past, one can only speculate it has to do with recent abhorrence for handicapped as a description of the disabled. Some elements of current society choose to stress abilities over shortcomings, thus terms that identify the disabled as lacking something the abled possess have fallen out of favor with them. Handicapped is seen as offensive by some because it stresses the negative, possibly leading to a continued view of the disabled as less than worthy members of the human race. Likewise, disabled is also seen as offensive to some who prefer the more ability-positive term less abled.
What has this to do with a false etymology? Well, it's far easier to convince folks to eschew a word if it can be tied to an offensive image than it is to get them to swear it off based on mere preference for something else.
24 Days Until Tennessee Handicaps Florida's Urban Myth
BeltwayVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
- Likes
- 4
Claim: The 'middle finger salute' is derived from the defiant gestures of English archers whose fingers had been severed by the French at the Battle of Agincourt.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 1999]
The 'Car Talk' show (on NPR) with Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers have a feature called the 'Puzzler', and their most recent 'Puzzler' was about the Battle of Agincourt. The French, who were overwhelmingly favored to win the battle, threatened to cut a certain body part off of all captured English soldiers so that they could never fight again. The English won in a major upset and waved the body part in question at the French in defiance. The puzzler was: What was this body part? This is the answer submitted by a listener:
Dear Click and Clack, Thank you for the Agincourt 'Puzzler', which clears up some profound questions of etymology, folklore and emotional symbolism. The body part which the French proposed to cut off of the English after defeating them was, of course, the middle finger, without which it is impossible to draw the renowned English longbow.
This famous weapon was made of the native English yew tree, and so the act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking yew".
Thus, when the victorious English waved their middle fingers at the defeated French, they said, "See, we can still pluck yew! PLUCK YEW!"
Over the years some 'folk etymologies' have grown up around this symbolic gesture. Since 'pluck yew' is rather difficult to say (like "pleasant mother pheasant plucker", which is who you had to go to for the feathers used on the arrows), the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodental fricative 'f', and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute are mistakenly thought to have something to do with an intimate encounter. It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird".
And yew all thought yew knew everything!
Origins: The piece quoted above is silly, and so obviously a joke that shouldn't need any debunking. Nonetheless, so many have forwarded it to us accompanied by an "Is this true?" query that we feel duty-bound to provide a bit of historical and linguistic information to demonstrate why this story couldn't possibly be true.
First of all, despite the lack of motion pictures and television way back in the 15th century, the details of medieval battles such as the one at Agincourt in 1415 did not go unrecorded. Battles were observed and chronicled by heralds who were present at the scene and recorded what they saw, judged who won, and fixed names for the battles. These heralds were not part of the participating armies, but were, as military expert John Keegan describes, members of an "international corporation of experts who regulated civilized warfare." Several heralds both French and English were present at the battle of Agincourt, and not one of them (or any later chroniclers of Agincourt) mentioned anything about the French having cut off the fingers of captured English bowman.
Secondly, for a variety of reasons, it made no military sense whatsoever for the French to capture English archers, then mutilate them by cutting off their fingers. Medieval warriors did not take prisoners because they were observing a moral code that dictated that opponents who laid down their arms and ceased fighting must be treated humanely; they took prisoners because high-ranking captives were valuable property that could be ransomed for money. The ransoming of prisoners was the only way for medieval soldiers to make a quick fortune, and so they seized every available opportunity to capture opponents who could be exchanged for a handsome price.
Bowman were not valuable prisoners, though; they stood outside the chivalric system and were considered the social inferiors of men-at-arms. There was no monetary reward to be obtained by capturing them, nor was there any glory to be won by defeating them in battle. As Keegan wrote, "To meet a similarly equipped opponent was the occasion for which the armoured soldier trained perhaps every day of his life from the onset of manhood. To meet and beat him was a triumph, the highest form which self-expression could take in the medieval nobleman's way of life." Archers were not the "similarly equipped" opponents that armored soldiers triumphed in defeating; if the two clashed in combat, the armored soldier would either kill an archer outright or leave him to bleed to death rather than go to the wasteful effort of taking him prisoner.
Moreover, if archers could be ransomed, then cutting off their middle fingers would be a senseless move. Your opponent is not going to pay you (or pay you much) for the return of mutilated soldiers, so now what do you do with them? Take on the burden and expense of caring for them? Kill them outright and violate the medieval moral code of civilized warfare? (Henry V was heavily criticized for supposedly having ordered the execution of French prisoners at Agincourt.)
Even if killing prisoners of war did not violate the moral code of the times, what would be the purpose of cutting off fingers and then executing these same people? Why not simply kill them outright in the first place? Do you return these prisoners to your opponents in exchange for nothing, thereby providing them with trained soldiers who can fight against you another day? (Even if archers whose middle fingers had been amputated could no longer effectively use their bows, they were still capable of wielding mallets, battleaxes, swords, lances, daggers, maces, and other weapons, as archers typically did and as they indeed did at Agincourt when the opponents closed ranks with them and the fighting became hand-to-hand.)
So much for history. There's not much that makes linguistic sense here, either. The claim that the "difficult consonant cluster at the beginning" of the phase 'pluck yew' has "gradually changed to a labiodental fricative 'f'" is specious. A labiodental fricative was no less "difficult" for Middle English speakers to pronounce than the aspirated bilabial stop/voiceless lateral combination of 'pl' that the fricative supposedly changed into, nor are there any other examples of such a shift occurring in English. As well, the etymology of the word (rhymes with duck), indicates that the word originated in a completely different time, place, and manner than the absurd version presented here. And on top of all that, the insulting gesture of extending one's middle finger (digitus impudicus in Latin) dates from Roman times (at least 2,000 years ago), so it obviously was not developed in conjunction with the creation of the English word for (rhymes with duck).'"
Last but certainly not least, wouldn't these insolent archers have been bragging about plucking the bow's string, and not the wood of the bow itself?
23 Days Until Tennessee "Flips" The College Football World Upside Down by Debunking The Urban Myth.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 1999]
The 'Car Talk' show (on NPR) with Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers have a feature called the 'Puzzler', and their most recent 'Puzzler' was about the Battle of Agincourt. The French, who were overwhelmingly favored to win the battle, threatened to cut a certain body part off of all captured English soldiers so that they could never fight again. The English won in a major upset and waved the body part in question at the French in defiance. The puzzler was: What was this body part? This is the answer submitted by a listener:
Dear Click and Clack, Thank you for the Agincourt 'Puzzler', which clears up some profound questions of etymology, folklore and emotional symbolism. The body part which the French proposed to cut off of the English after defeating them was, of course, the middle finger, without which it is impossible to draw the renowned English longbow.
This famous weapon was made of the native English yew tree, and so the act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking yew".
Thus, when the victorious English waved their middle fingers at the defeated French, they said, "See, we can still pluck yew! PLUCK YEW!"
Over the years some 'folk etymologies' have grown up around this symbolic gesture. Since 'pluck yew' is rather difficult to say (like "pleasant mother pheasant plucker", which is who you had to go to for the feathers used on the arrows), the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodental fricative 'f', and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute are mistakenly thought to have something to do with an intimate encounter. It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird".
And yew all thought yew knew everything!
Origins: The piece quoted above is silly, and so obviously a joke that shouldn't need any debunking. Nonetheless, so many have forwarded it to us accompanied by an "Is this true?" query that we feel duty-bound to provide a bit of historical and linguistic information to demonstrate why this story couldn't possibly be true.
First of all, despite the lack of motion pictures and television way back in the 15th century, the details of medieval battles such as the one at Agincourt in 1415 did not go unrecorded. Battles were observed and chronicled by heralds who were present at the scene and recorded what they saw, judged who won, and fixed names for the battles. These heralds were not part of the participating armies, but were, as military expert John Keegan describes, members of an "international corporation of experts who regulated civilized warfare." Several heralds both French and English were present at the battle of Agincourt, and not one of them (or any later chroniclers of Agincourt) mentioned anything about the French having cut off the fingers of captured English bowman.
Secondly, for a variety of reasons, it made no military sense whatsoever for the French to capture English archers, then mutilate them by cutting off their fingers. Medieval warriors did not take prisoners because they were observing a moral code that dictated that opponents who laid down their arms and ceased fighting must be treated humanely; they took prisoners because high-ranking captives were valuable property that could be ransomed for money. The ransoming of prisoners was the only way for medieval soldiers to make a quick fortune, and so they seized every available opportunity to capture opponents who could be exchanged for a handsome price.
Bowman were not valuable prisoners, though; they stood outside the chivalric system and were considered the social inferiors of men-at-arms. There was no monetary reward to be obtained by capturing them, nor was there any glory to be won by defeating them in battle. As Keegan wrote, "To meet a similarly equipped opponent was the occasion for which the armoured soldier trained perhaps every day of his life from the onset of manhood. To meet and beat him was a triumph, the highest form which self-expression could take in the medieval nobleman's way of life." Archers were not the "similarly equipped" opponents that armored soldiers triumphed in defeating; if the two clashed in combat, the armored soldier would either kill an archer outright or leave him to bleed to death rather than go to the wasteful effort of taking him prisoner.
Moreover, if archers could be ransomed, then cutting off their middle fingers would be a senseless move. Your opponent is not going to pay you (or pay you much) for the return of mutilated soldiers, so now what do you do with them? Take on the burden and expense of caring for them? Kill them outright and violate the medieval moral code of civilized warfare? (Henry V was heavily criticized for supposedly having ordered the execution of French prisoners at Agincourt.)
Even if killing prisoners of war did not violate the moral code of the times, what would be the purpose of cutting off fingers and then executing these same people? Why not simply kill them outright in the first place? Do you return these prisoners to your opponents in exchange for nothing, thereby providing them with trained soldiers who can fight against you another day? (Even if archers whose middle fingers had been amputated could no longer effectively use their bows, they were still capable of wielding mallets, battleaxes, swords, lances, daggers, maces, and other weapons, as archers typically did and as they indeed did at Agincourt when the opponents closed ranks with them and the fighting became hand-to-hand.)
So much for history. There's not much that makes linguistic sense here, either. The claim that the "difficult consonant cluster at the beginning" of the phase 'pluck yew' has "gradually changed to a labiodental fricative 'f'" is specious. A labiodental fricative was no less "difficult" for Middle English speakers to pronounce than the aspirated bilabial stop/voiceless lateral combination of 'pl' that the fricative supposedly changed into, nor are there any other examples of such a shift occurring in English. As well, the etymology of the word (rhymes with duck), indicates that the word originated in a completely different time, place, and manner than the absurd version presented here. And on top of all that, the insulting gesture of extending one's middle finger (digitus impudicus in Latin) dates from Roman times (at least 2,000 years ago), so it obviously was not developed in conjunction with the creation of the English word for (rhymes with duck).'"
Last but certainly not least, wouldn't these insolent archers have been bragging about plucking the bow's string, and not the wood of the bow itself?
23 Days Until Tennessee "Flips" The College Football World Upside Down by Debunking The Urban Myth.
BeltwayVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
- Likes
- 4
Claim: A gun-toting Australian granny blew the testicles off the two men who raped her granddaughter.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2000]
MELBOURNE, Australia
Gun-toting granny Ava Estelle, 81, was so ticked-off when two thugs raped her 18-year-old granddaughter that she tracked the unsuspecting ex-cons down -- and shot their testicles off!
"The old lady spent a week hunting those bums down -- and when she found them, she took revenge on them in her own special way," said admiring Melbourne police investigator Evan Delp.
"Then she took a taxi to the nearest police station, laid the gun on the sergeant's desk and told him as calm as could be: 'Those bastards will never rape anybody again, by God.'"
Cops say convicted rapist and robber Davis Furth, 33, lost both his penis and his testicles when outraged Ava opened fire with a 9-mm pistol in the seedy hotel room where he and former prison cellmate Stanley Thomas, 29, were holed up.
The wrinkled avenger also blew Thomas' testicles to kingdom come, but doctors managed to save his mangled penis, police said.
"The one guy, Thomas, didn't lose his manhood, but the doctor I talked to said he won't be using it the way he used to," Detective Delp told reporters. "Both men are still in pretty bad shape, but I think they're just happy to be alive after what they've been through."
The Rambo Granny swung into action August 21 after her granddaughter Debbie was carjacked and raped by two knife-wielding creeps in a section of town bordering on skid row.
"When I saw the look on my Debbie's face that night in the hospital, I decided I was going to go out and get those bastards myself 'cause I figured the police would go easy on them," recalled the retired library worker. "And I wasn't scared of them, either -- because I've got me a gun and I've been shootin' it all my life."
So, using a police artist's sketch of the suspects and Debbie's description of the sickos' car, tough-as-nails Ava spent seven days prowling the wino-infested neighborhood where the crime took place till she spotted the ill-fated rapists entering their flophouse hotel.
"I knew it was them the minute I saw 'em, but I shot a picture of 'em anyway and took it back to Debbie and she said sure as hell, it was them," the ornery oldster recalled.
"So I went back to that hotel and found their room and knocked on the door -- and the minute the big one, Furth, opened the door, I shot 'em, got right square between the legs, right where it would really hurt 'em most, you know. Then I went down to the police station and turned myself in."
Now, baffled lawmen are tying to figure out how to deal with the vigilante granny. "What she did was wrong, but you can't really throw an 81-year-old woman in prison." Det. Delp said, "especially when all 3 million people in the city want to nominate her for sainthood."
Origins: Sorry, but this February 2000 e-mail is a fanciful tale of imagined revenge and nothing more -- searches of Australian news archives fail to turn up news stories featuring any of the people named in the account, reports about the shootings of the rapists, or the rape that supposedly sparked the retribution. Those living in the area also fail to recall seeing anything about this on the nightly news.
Moreover, in March 2000, an Australian newspaper referred to the already Internet-speeded story as "a good urban myth."
Regrettably, Grambo exists only in our hearts and inboxes. We cherish her anyway.
But really, could anyone honestly swallow a tale of vigilante justice in which the police spokesman is characterized as "admiring" of someone who turned a firearm on two others? As righteous as a cause might be, the moment a crime victim or one of her sympathizers takes matters into her own hands, that person becomes a criminal engaged in illegal activity. Police would not be "baffled" about what to do with such a person -- an arrest would be made and charges laid.
Those familiar with Australian forms of speech have pointed out no one from that country would refer to another as a bum (as the supposed police investigator did when he said "...hunting those bums down"). A "bum" Down Under is the body part one sits upon -- in that dialect, the term does not enjoy the diversity of meaning it does in North American slang.
Moreover, the various phrasings attributed to Ava Estelle would never drop from the lips of an Australian (unless she'd spent her life chained to a rock in the Ozarks).
Okay, so we can't believe the story. We still want to, though.
Fake or real, Grambo is perceived as a hero. In a world populated by bad guys seemingly always getting away with one horrible act after another, we need to believe that at least someone somewhere stood up to the wrongs, took matters into her own hands, and dealt out some much-needed justice, even if it was of the street variety. Popular culture is filled with instances of the wronged being denied protection by the authorities and having to right the world on their own because that theme plays into both what we hold as true deep in our hearts (criminals escape justice through legal loopholes) and what we wish for (justice being meted out to these miscreants anyway).
It's no accident that this work of fiction features two adult male rapists (which one immediately pictures as strong, overpowering creeps), a teenage girl victim, and a frail little old lady of 81 years (a retired library worker, at that). The contrast makes for a more thrilling tale, and the cheers over David toppling Goliath become louder and more enthusiastic.
22 Days Until The Cheers for David Become Cheers For Tennessee Exposing Florida's Urban Myth.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2000]
MELBOURNE, Australia
Gun-toting granny Ava Estelle, 81, was so ticked-off when two thugs raped her 18-year-old granddaughter that she tracked the unsuspecting ex-cons down -- and shot their testicles off!
"The old lady spent a week hunting those bums down -- and when she found them, she took revenge on them in her own special way," said admiring Melbourne police investigator Evan Delp.
"Then she took a taxi to the nearest police station, laid the gun on the sergeant's desk and told him as calm as could be: 'Those bastards will never rape anybody again, by God.'"
Cops say convicted rapist and robber Davis Furth, 33, lost both his penis and his testicles when outraged Ava opened fire with a 9-mm pistol in the seedy hotel room where he and former prison cellmate Stanley Thomas, 29, were holed up.
The wrinkled avenger also blew Thomas' testicles to kingdom come, but doctors managed to save his mangled penis, police said.
"The one guy, Thomas, didn't lose his manhood, but the doctor I talked to said he won't be using it the way he used to," Detective Delp told reporters. "Both men are still in pretty bad shape, but I think they're just happy to be alive after what they've been through."
The Rambo Granny swung into action August 21 after her granddaughter Debbie was carjacked and raped by two knife-wielding creeps in a section of town bordering on skid row.
"When I saw the look on my Debbie's face that night in the hospital, I decided I was going to go out and get those bastards myself 'cause I figured the police would go easy on them," recalled the retired library worker. "And I wasn't scared of them, either -- because I've got me a gun and I've been shootin' it all my life."
So, using a police artist's sketch of the suspects and Debbie's description of the sickos' car, tough-as-nails Ava spent seven days prowling the wino-infested neighborhood where the crime took place till she spotted the ill-fated rapists entering their flophouse hotel.
"I knew it was them the minute I saw 'em, but I shot a picture of 'em anyway and took it back to Debbie and she said sure as hell, it was them," the ornery oldster recalled.
"So I went back to that hotel and found their room and knocked on the door -- and the minute the big one, Furth, opened the door, I shot 'em, got right square between the legs, right where it would really hurt 'em most, you know. Then I went down to the police station and turned myself in."
Now, baffled lawmen are tying to figure out how to deal with the vigilante granny. "What she did was wrong, but you can't really throw an 81-year-old woman in prison." Det. Delp said, "especially when all 3 million people in the city want to nominate her for sainthood."
Origins: Sorry, but this February 2000 e-mail is a fanciful tale of imagined revenge and nothing more -- searches of Australian news archives fail to turn up news stories featuring any of the people named in the account, reports about the shootings of the rapists, or the rape that supposedly sparked the retribution. Those living in the area also fail to recall seeing anything about this on the nightly news.
Moreover, in March 2000, an Australian newspaper referred to the already Internet-speeded story as "a good urban myth."
Regrettably, Grambo exists only in our hearts and inboxes. We cherish her anyway.
But really, could anyone honestly swallow a tale of vigilante justice in which the police spokesman is characterized as "admiring" of someone who turned a firearm on two others? As righteous as a cause might be, the moment a crime victim or one of her sympathizers takes matters into her own hands, that person becomes a criminal engaged in illegal activity. Police would not be "baffled" about what to do with such a person -- an arrest would be made and charges laid.
Those familiar with Australian forms of speech have pointed out no one from that country would refer to another as a bum (as the supposed police investigator did when he said "...hunting those bums down"). A "bum" Down Under is the body part one sits upon -- in that dialect, the term does not enjoy the diversity of meaning it does in North American slang.
Moreover, the various phrasings attributed to Ava Estelle would never drop from the lips of an Australian (unless she'd spent her life chained to a rock in the Ozarks).
Okay, so we can't believe the story. We still want to, though.
Fake or real, Grambo is perceived as a hero. In a world populated by bad guys seemingly always getting away with one horrible act after another, we need to believe that at least someone somewhere stood up to the wrongs, took matters into her own hands, and dealt out some much-needed justice, even if it was of the street variety. Popular culture is filled with instances of the wronged being denied protection by the authorities and having to right the world on their own because that theme plays into both what we hold as true deep in our hearts (criminals escape justice through legal loopholes) and what we wish for (justice being meted out to these miscreants anyway).
It's no accident that this work of fiction features two adult male rapists (which one immediately pictures as strong, overpowering creeps), a teenage girl victim, and a frail little old lady of 81 years (a retired library worker, at that). The contrast makes for a more thrilling tale, and the cheers over David toppling Goliath become louder and more enthusiastic.
22 Days Until The Cheers for David Become Cheers For Tennessee Exposing Florida's Urban Myth.
BeltwayVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
- Likes
- 4
Claim: Sororities are outlawed on certain campuses because local "brothel laws" prohibit more than a specified number of females from living together.
Examples: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]
Sorority houses are illegal in PA. Due to a 19th century law banning more the 5 unrelated women from living in the same house. This law supposedly was meant to prevent prostitution houses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Collected on the Internet, 1998]
Well, my alma mater is Denison University. Dogs were part of the landscape when there were fraternities on campus. There are no fraternities there anymore. I was in a sorority, but we weren't allowed to live in the sorority houses (old town law about more than 8 women in a house constituting a brothel).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Collected on the Internet, 1997]
I have a friend who goes to Loyola New Orleans. They cannot have sorority houses because more than five girls in one house is a brothel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Collected on the Internet, 1995]
I have heard from the ol' rumor mill that the reason that sororities don't have houses at the University of Chicago is that there's some sort of local/state law which defines four or more unmarried women living together as a brothel.
Variations: The number of sorority sisters that would supposedly trigger the "brothel" designation varies from telling to telling, with six being one of the more common figures kited.
This legend is told as true on any number of U.S. campuses, always by way of explanation for each school's lack of sorority houses.
Origins: This mistaken belief has been recorded since the 1960s and is probably a great deal older than that. Its possible origin might lie in a mental confluence of half-remembered tidbits about old time "blue laws" mixed with a healthy dollop of badly-parsed newer input about zoning laws adopted by various communities in more contemporary times. Short and sweet, if any so-called "brothel laws" anywhere tie a building's classification as a bordello to the number of occupants, we've yet to find documentation that proves this.
Some municipalities do indeed have zoning laws prohibiting more than a specified number of non-family members (male or female) from living together, but not even in those cases would a household in violation of those codes be labeled a brothel. Brothels earn such designations solely on the basis of what goes on in them, not upon how many women inhabit particular buildings.
Even in communities that carry such housing restrictions on their books, sororities and fraternities are exempted from them. The thrust of such laws is to set limits on how many people may reasonably inhabit what were meant to be single-family dwellings, not to enjoin those who are living in more communal settings in buildings meant for such purposes. Were such laws to apply to those latter forms of housing, local YWCAs would have been shut down and padlocked, as would a variety of nurses' residences.
Collegians have been explaining the lack of sorority houses on various campuses through this flawed factlet for many a year. Richard Roeper noted this legend in 1994, calling it "the most widespread piece of university folklore making the rounds" and estimating from entries on collegiate bulletin boards that it was being told on at least 100 campuses.
The belief that a "brothel law" bars live-in sororities from campuses is so deeply worked into the fabric of collegiate life that few now think to question it. In 1998 a group of eight students at Tulane University unsuccessfully searched city and state laws for the statute, finally concluding they'd been on a wild goose chase. "It was not found in either city or state codes," Adriana Belli, one of the student researchers, said. "We looked in every law book, every ordinance in New Orleans . . . dating back to the 1800s."
We routinely hear from students who are convinced their particular university lacks a sorority because of this non-existent law. Their vehemence aside, none have yet produce a copy of the statute they so firmly believe in, an act that would earn their city and institution of higher learning a measure of fame in the world of contemporary lore.
Men view the notion of large numbers of women living together as strangely erotic, mentally envisioning a veritable candy store of comely and available sex partners, each of them bedding down for the night virginally clutching her teddy bear close to her babydoll-clad, pulsating 38-24-36 nakedness (which they wouldn't if they'd ever been locked in a women's dorm overnight nothing kills rampant sexual fantasy more quickly than a cold eyeful of reality.) Add to the mix the "college girl" element (young, nubile flesh) and throw in the "sorority girl" detail (presumed promiscuity), and it's easy to see why this tidbit about brothel zoning has been so stubbornly promulgated.
21 Days Until Tennessee Smacks Florida's Urban Myth Around Like A Sorority Girl at a Florida Frat Party.
Examples: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]
Sorority houses are illegal in PA. Due to a 19th century law banning more the 5 unrelated women from living in the same house. This law supposedly was meant to prevent prostitution houses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Collected on the Internet, 1998]
Well, my alma mater is Denison University. Dogs were part of the landscape when there were fraternities on campus. There are no fraternities there anymore. I was in a sorority, but we weren't allowed to live in the sorority houses (old town law about more than 8 women in a house constituting a brothel).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Collected on the Internet, 1997]
I have a friend who goes to Loyola New Orleans. They cannot have sorority houses because more than five girls in one house is a brothel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Collected on the Internet, 1995]
I have heard from the ol' rumor mill that the reason that sororities don't have houses at the University of Chicago is that there's some sort of local/state law which defines four or more unmarried women living together as a brothel.
Variations: The number of sorority sisters that would supposedly trigger the "brothel" designation varies from telling to telling, with six being one of the more common figures kited.
This legend is told as true on any number of U.S. campuses, always by way of explanation for each school's lack of sorority houses.
Origins: This mistaken belief has been recorded since the 1960s and is probably a great deal older than that. Its possible origin might lie in a mental confluence of half-remembered tidbits about old time "blue laws" mixed with a healthy dollop of badly-parsed newer input about zoning laws adopted by various communities in more contemporary times. Short and sweet, if any so-called "brothel laws" anywhere tie a building's classification as a bordello to the number of occupants, we've yet to find documentation that proves this.
Some municipalities do indeed have zoning laws prohibiting more than a specified number of non-family members (male or female) from living together, but not even in those cases would a household in violation of those codes be labeled a brothel. Brothels earn such designations solely on the basis of what goes on in them, not upon how many women inhabit particular buildings.
Even in communities that carry such housing restrictions on their books, sororities and fraternities are exempted from them. The thrust of such laws is to set limits on how many people may reasonably inhabit what were meant to be single-family dwellings, not to enjoin those who are living in more communal settings in buildings meant for such purposes. Were such laws to apply to those latter forms of housing, local YWCAs would have been shut down and padlocked, as would a variety of nurses' residences.
Collegians have been explaining the lack of sorority houses on various campuses through this flawed factlet for many a year. Richard Roeper noted this legend in 1994, calling it "the most widespread piece of university folklore making the rounds" and estimating from entries on collegiate bulletin boards that it was being told on at least 100 campuses.
The belief that a "brothel law" bars live-in sororities from campuses is so deeply worked into the fabric of collegiate life that few now think to question it. In 1998 a group of eight students at Tulane University unsuccessfully searched city and state laws for the statute, finally concluding they'd been on a wild goose chase. "It was not found in either city or state codes," Adriana Belli, one of the student researchers, said. "We looked in every law book, every ordinance in New Orleans . . . dating back to the 1800s."
We routinely hear from students who are convinced their particular university lacks a sorority because of this non-existent law. Their vehemence aside, none have yet produce a copy of the statute they so firmly believe in, an act that would earn their city and institution of higher learning a measure of fame in the world of contemporary lore.
Men view the notion of large numbers of women living together as strangely erotic, mentally envisioning a veritable candy store of comely and available sex partners, each of them bedding down for the night virginally clutching her teddy bear close to her babydoll-clad, pulsating 38-24-36 nakedness (which they wouldn't if they'd ever been locked in a women's dorm overnight nothing kills rampant sexual fantasy more quickly than a cold eyeful of reality.) Add to the mix the "college girl" element (young, nubile flesh) and throw in the "sorority girl" detail (presumed promiscuity), and it's easy to see why this tidbit about brothel zoning has been so stubbornly promulgated.
21 Days Until Tennessee Smacks Florida's Urban Myth Around Like A Sorority Girl at a Florida Frat Party.
NCGatorBait
VN GURU
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Messages
- 9,800
- Likes
- 0
NCGatorBait
VN GURU
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Messages
- 9,800
- Likes
- 0
OldVol
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,931
- Likes
- 597
pssst ... between you and me, yes, you're right. But don't tell Beltway. I'll deny it if you do. In my opinion a 9/3 record for Florida would have to be considered a success. Losses to UT, GA, and LSU would be good losses.
Losing to FSU would not be an awful loss, but should be a win for FL.
Losing to Bama would be very bad.
Beltway does have a point in regard to many in the media who have anointed him the second coming of Steve before a down has even been played.
Some have him ranked top 5.
Some have him competing for a NC THIS year.
In light of those projections, it would be a myth if he doesn't perform to the projection. The same could be said of another team who seems to be the consensus #3 team on all of the polls that actually count.
But as I said, this is just between me and you. If I were to get caught fraternizing with the enemy it would not be good for me. B)
NCGatorBait
VN GURU
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Messages
- 9,800
- Likes
- 0
BeltwayVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
- Likes
- 4
I'm not as against Urban as it appears based on this thread. Who I am against is the Florida fans and the media that have annoited him KING. That's why I made this thread. That, and the fact I am pumped about the game and I knew others were. The Urban Myths I pull from Snoops are just a creative way to be reminded about how much longer it is until we play the Gators.
People take me so damn seriously, and I guess I am to blame, but I wish people would get to know me a little more personally before they pass judgement and assume that I am saying things I'm not saying. Again, that's my fault for being so forward and attempting to be creative and entertaining.
People take me so damn seriously, and I guess I am to blame, but I wish people would get to know me a little more personally before they pass judgement and assume that I am saying things I'm not saying. Again, that's my fault for being so forward and attempting to be creative and entertaining.
NCGatorBait
VN GURU
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Messages
- 9,800
- Likes
- 0
BeltwayVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
- Likes
- 4
NCGatorBait
VN GURU
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Messages
- 9,800
- Likes
- 0
BeltwayVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 1,441
- Likes
- 4
VN Store
