Here, let's see what you JavaScript programmers have got

On Sep 6, 7:41*am, "John Holmes" <see...@instead.com> wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>
> > "So Rare". *They have Jimmy Dorsey too, but I like the Mills Brothers..
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFuXtajtbPg
>
> I like the Mills Brothers too, but they were much better without a band
> behind them. Here's some rare old footage:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aitSe9QDOuk

And here I thought you were going to post this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He4S5UdQ76Y

.....r

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:42:47 -0400, John W Kennedy
<jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:

>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:22:24 -0400, John W Kennedy
>> <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 03:52:35 GMT, Mike Duffy <respond@newsgroup.only>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:g9pp0d321ik@news1.newsguy.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rare atmosphere" is uncommon atmosphere?
>>>>> The molecules are comparatively rare (uncommon) per unit volume.
>>>>>
>>>>>> A "rare earth" is an uncommon earth?
>>>>> The full expression is: "Rare earth metal". These metals are uncommon.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Enough.
>>>>> Agreed. And you forgot "rarebit".
>>>> As in "Welsh rarebit", where the "rarebit" is a misunderstanding (What
>>>> is the fancier term?) for "rabbit".
>>> "Genteelism".
>>
>> Thank you. It is that, but I was trying to think of the English usage
>> term for assuming a derivation that isn't so. If one correctly refers
>> to the dish as Welsh rabbit and he is incorrectly hypercorrected, I
>> think there is a term for that exchange.
>
>"Folk etymology"?

Thank you for the suggestion, but that is not the term I've been
trying to remember. It arose in one of the food threads, where the
Welsh Rabbit/Rarebit misunderstanding by either a waiter or a patron
was discussed at some length. I may be thinking of a hypercorrection.
--

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

CDB wrote:
> John Holmes wrote:
>> CDB wrote:
>
> [old and rare]
>
>>> "So Rare". They have Jimmy Dorsey too, but I like the Mills
>>> Brothers.
>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFuXtajtbPg
>
>> I like the Mills Brothers too, but they were much better without a
>> band behind them. Here's some rare old footage:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aitSe9QDOuk
>
> Thank you. You can really hear what good singers they were. That
> must be an early performance: they were looking remarkably harmless
> (restrained smiles, raised eyebrows, restrained body movements away
> from the camera or sideways, little prolonged 'eye-contact' with the
> viewer; the women had a little more freedom).

A case of rare = wonderful as well as rare = seldom seen, I think. It
would be interesting to know just when it was recorded. Technically, it
looks earlier than their reported first film in 1932 (The Big
Broadcast*, according to Wikipedia). Musical performers were probably
still a bit shy of cameras in those days.

BTW, I'm sure I've seen those girls in a Roxy Music video clip more
recently.

*To compare the technical quality, here's an early Michael Jackson
impersonator from the same film. (And he leaves little doubt what the
song is about -- I recall 'cokey' being discussed here before.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCOvG_vGzRc

--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

R H Draney wrote:
>
> And here I thought you were going to post this:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He4S5UdQ76Y
>

Sshhh. Don't let Dan see that one.

--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

John Holmes wrote:

> R H Draney wrote:

>> And here I thought you were going to post this:

>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He4S5UdQ76Y

> Sshhh. Don't let Dan see that one.


Why did they sing "rare"?

--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:44:30 +0100, Chuck Riggs <chriggs@eircom.net>
wrote:

>>At least since 1848.
>>
>>"‘T is heaven alone that is given away,
>>‘T is only God may be had for the asking;
>>There is no price set on the lavish summer,
>>And June may be had by the poorest comer.
>>
>>"And what is so rare as a day in June?
>>Then, if ever, come perfect days;
>>..."
>>
>>certainly doesn't mean that June has only a few days, or that they are
>>less common than in other months. It means that June days are especially
>>fine -- as near to perfect as days ever are..
>
I've run into the James Russell Lowell quote numerous times before.
It seems he is saying that the days in June are of an exceptionally
pleasant quality. The meaning of "unusual" is still there. I can
sort of understand it; I suppose it could be similar to the way I've
felt about December in the past, with Christmas coming up and all.

I guess the question is, if "rare" can sometimes mean "exceptionally
pleasant", why can't it also mean "exceptionally UNpleasant"? After
all, I'm used to thinking of "rare" as a term with a negative
connotation. Also, I'm wondering if the Lowell quote would have been
considerably less intelligible if it hadn't been written so long as
160 years ago. (Cf. "There is a green hill far away / Without a city
wall", which I discovered while researching "sans". Many people
today, it seems, are thrown off by those lines.)

>"Rare", there, means "valued", I'd say. Rare is certainly not limited
>to meaning unusual or infrequent.
>Dan doesn't appear to see this, IINM.

No. I see "rare" as relating to *supply* only. It doesn't have one
bit to do with *demand*. I gave up some time ago on trying to figure
out exactly what the difference in meaning between "rare" and "scarce"
was. It appears that those who insist that there's a difference must
simply have a different definition of "rare" than I do.

- Dan
--
Daniel G. McGrath
Binghamton, New York
e-mail: dmcg6174[AT]gmail[DOT]com

Dan McGrath wrote:

> Chuck Riggs wrote:

>>> At least since 1848.

>>> "‘T is heaven alone that is given away,
>>> ‘T is only God may be had for the asking;
>>> There is no price set on the lavish summer,
>>> And June may be had by the poorest comer.

>>> "And what is so rare as a day in June?
>>> Then, if ever, come perfect days;

>>> certainly doesn't mean that June has only a few days, or that they are
>>> less common than in other months. It means that June days are especially
>>> fine -- as near to perfect as days ever are..

> I've run into the James Russell Lowell quote numerous times before.
> It seems he is saying that the days in June are of an exceptionally
> pleasant quality. The meaning of "unusual" is still there. I can
> sort of understand it; I suppose it could be similar to the way I've
> felt about December in the past, with Christmas coming up and all.

> I guess the question is, if "rare" can sometimes mean "exceptionally
> pleasant", why can't it also mean "exceptionally UNpleasant"? After
> all, I'm used to thinking of "rare" as a term with a negative
> connotation. Also, I'm wondering if the Lowell quote would have been
> considerably less intelligible if it hadn't been written so long as
> 160 years ago. (Cf. "There is a green hill far away / Without a city
> wall", which I discovered while researching "sans". Many people
> today, it seems, are thrown off by those lines.)

>> "Rare", there, means "valued", I'd say. Rare is certainly not limited
>> to meaning unusual or infrequent.
>> Dan doesn't appear to see this, IINM.

> No. I see "rare" as relating to *supply* only. It doesn't have one
> bit to do with *demand*. I gave up some time ago on trying to figure
> out exactly what the difference in meaning between "rare" and "scarce"
> was. It appears that those who insist that there's a difference must
> simply have a different definition of "rare" than I do.


Your observation skills, your rationalizing skills, your
acceptable ability to produce counterpoint, other displayed
skills, are inconsistent with autism.

Over the past two years, my observation is you display
no symptoms of autism.

--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:29:22 -0400, Dan McGrath wrote:
> No. I see "rare" as relating to *supply* only. It doesn't have one bit
> to do with *demand*. I gave up some time ago on trying to figure out
> exactly what the difference in meaning between "rare" and "scarce" was.
> It appears that those who insist that there's a difference must simply
> have a different definition of "rare" than I do.

I know the difference we have at the shop where I work.

"Rare" -- A customer is looking for one and can't find it easily.

"Scarce" -- WE are looking for one and can't find it easily.

We have some rare items stock piled in our back room.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:32:04 -0700, Purl Gurl <purlgurl@purlgurl.net>
wrote:

>Dan McGrath wrote:
>
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>>>> At least since 1848.
>
>>>> "‘T is heaven alone that is given away,
>>>> ‘T is only God may be had for the asking;
>>>> There is no price set on the lavish summer,
>>>> And June may be had by the poorest comer.
>
>>>> "And what is so rare as a day in June?
>>>> Then, if ever, come perfect days;
>
>>>> certainly doesn't mean that June has only a few days, or that they are
>>>> less common than in other months. It means that June days are especially
>>>> fine -- as near to perfect as days ever are..
>
>> I've run into the James Russell Lowell quote numerous times before.
>> It seems he is saying that the days in June are of an exceptionally
>> pleasant quality. The meaning of "unusual" is still there. I can
>> sort of understand it; I suppose it could be similar to the way I've
>> felt about December in the past, with Christmas coming up and all.
>
>> I guess the question is, if "rare" can sometimes mean "exceptionally
>> pleasant", why can't it also mean "exceptionally UNpleasant"? After
>> all, I'm used to thinking of "rare" as a term with a negative
>> connotation. Also, I'm wondering if the Lowell quote would have been
>> considerably less intelligible if it hadn't been written so long as
>> 160 years ago. (Cf. "There is a green hill far away / Without a city
>> wall", which I discovered while researching "sans". Many people
>> today, it seems, are thrown off by those lines.)
>
>>> "Rare", there, means "valued", I'd say. Rare is certainly not limited
>>> to meaning unusual or infrequent.
>>> Dan doesn't appear to see this, IINM.
>
>> No. I see "rare" as relating to *supply* only. It doesn't have one
>> bit to do with *demand*. I gave up some time ago on trying to figure
>> out exactly what the difference in meaning between "rare" and "scarce"
>> was. It appears that those who insist that there's a difference must
>> simply have a different definition of "rare" than I do.
>
>
>Your observation skills, your rationalizing skills, your
>acceptable ability to produce counterpoint, other displayed
>skills, are inconsistent with autism.
>
>Over the past two years, my observation is you display
>no symptoms of autism.

!

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:32:04 -0700, Purl Gurl
<purlgurl@purlgurl.net> wrote:

>
>
>Your observation skills, your rationalizing skills, your
>acceptable ability to produce counterpoint, other displayed
>skills, are inconsistent with autism.
>
>Over the past two years, my observation is you display
>no symptoms of autism.
>
Purl Gurl, thank you for your helpful, tactful and insightful
comments.

Dan, that sentence addressed to Purl Gurl is an example of
irony.

OED:

1. A figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the
opposite of that expressed by the words used; usually taking
the form of sarcasm or ridicule in which laudatory
expressions are used to imply condemnation or contempt.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)