Home » Discussion Forum

Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

Discussion Forum (Archived)

Please consider registering
Guest
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Min search length: 3 characters / Max search length: 84 characters
The forums are currently locked and only available for read only access
sp_TopicIcon
Bogarting Bangers (full episode)
Guest
21
2009/06/12 - 5:25am

You have the option to edit only while your post is the last one.

Guest
22
2009/06/13 - 3:54am

I'll submit my vote for "mug shock." Should there be a more general term when other expectations are not met exactly as you expected? Maybe you see a face and expect a certain kind of voice, or hear a person's name and form an opinion based on that?

AnMa
67 Posts
(Offline)
23
2009/06/22 - 12:05pm

I agree that any two members of our society deserve mutual respect. But I have trouble agreeing with the idea that public officials are merely employees and don't deserve deferential forms of address, simply because they are employees of the public. They are employees that have often been given a “governing” (I prefer “governing” to “ruling”) responsibility and authority. The respect shown to the person should be common to all people, but there should be uncommon respect shown to the office of those who have been given special oversight of the common welfare.

It looks like we're just not going to agree on this. From my point of view, a democratic system demands that we not engage in courtesies that grants public officials a higher status than other citizens, and that includes any and all forms of deference.

Surely, if they do not have uncommon ability to perform the office, worthy of respect, they should not be in the office.


This bit makes no sense to me. First, respect and deference are not the same thing. As I said before, respect is easily shown with common courtesy and requires no forms of deference.

Second, "ability to perform the office" is something that we the public hope for, but is not something that is necessarily present. Furthermore, ability bears no relationship to forms of deference.

Guest
24
2009/06/22 - 2:28pm

Is the use of Dr. also anathema in your view?

AnMa
67 Posts
(Offline)
25
2009/06/24 - 2:49pm

In what circumstance?

A patient interacting with a physician who is acting in his capacity as a physician (or between two physicians acting in their professional capacities), or a student interacting with the holder of a doctorate degree who is acting in an academic capacity (or between two academics, in their professional capacities) — I see no problem with the use of “doctor” as a mode of address in these situations.

I see no reason to use “doctor” for the holder of a public office in a democratic system who is acting in his or her capacity as a public official. It seems somewhat less offensive to me than “president,” “chief justice,” “the honorable,” etc., because it's not directly based upon the office. However, I would prefer to avoid any appearance of deference. A public official should be content with Mr./Mrs./Ms., titles that all members of the society may rightfully claim.

Guest
26
2009/06/26 - 11:18pm

I had thought that "Bogarting" something had to do with how Bogart allowed his cigarette to perch on his lip, sometimes bobbing up and down as he spoke. Letting the cigarette just smolder without him inhaling from it is wasteful, I assumed, hence wasting or hogging something could be "Bogarting." Am I completely off base or does this make sense? Does anyone know if there is a basis in history for this understanding?

Guest
27
2009/08/29 - 12:52pm

Hearing the mention of the word "davenport" on the show today brought back memories of my grandmother. She always referred to their couch as the davenport. She was born sometime in the 1910s in Indiana.

Guest
28
2009/08/31 - 4:31pm

ruve, that was exactly my understanding of the word when I first heard it, in the context of Easy Rider,back when it was new. That image was, and is, so clear and strong that I've never thought to look further for the origin.

Guest
29
2009/09/02 - 11:04am

Ruve is indeed correct. As both a Little Feat fan (I'm listening to "Willin'" as I write this) and a child of the sixties, the phrase derives from the way Bogart left a cigarette hanging on his lips while speaking lines, letting the cigarette just sit there and burn, without inhaling.

To "Bogart a joint" meant you were letting the extremely valuable non-tobacco-product just burn away, without giving anyone (including yourself, so it had nothing to do with dominance of others) the benefit of it. You were being wasteful of it (although, looking back on it with clearer vision, I suppose you *could* argue that was, in fact, a subtle form of dominance, but it wasn't so much by hogging it for yourself as by preventing someone else from using it).

The art of the music video was in its infancy then, but I seem dimly to remember one of the music shows of the day putting together a video to go with the song which featured Bogart doing just that, letting his cigarette hang in his mouth. Still, a quick search of YouTube doesn't turn up the video I remember, so that could be bogus.

Still, another small correction. IIRC, the Easy Rider soundtrack appearance was by Fraternity of Man, not Little Feat, though Lowell George (who was one of the founders of Little Feat) was in Fraternity of Man at the time and the song crossed over to Little Feat with him. Little Feat was founded about the time easy Rider was released, but didn't issue its first recording until after 1970.

Most of this is done from memory, though, and in the words of David Crosby, "Anyone who claims to remember the 60's wasn't really there," so it's quite possible I'm a little foggy on some of the details.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Show Stats
Administrators:
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Moderators:
Grant Barrett
Top Posters:
Newest Members:
Mike Brock
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 1
Topics: 3647
Posts: 18912

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 618
Members: 1266
Moderators: 1
Admins: 2
Most Users Ever Online: 1147
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 48
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Recent posts