We get tons of birds in my yard...including a few different kinds of species of woodpeckers and blue birds which are amazingly beautiful...
they are fun to watch.
At the same point in time birds overall are creepy...I mean how could they not be?...they have no hands?!?!:congrats:
I'm fine with birds. Cows and horses kind if weird me out though,
You should start that thread!
Originally Posted by Shultzie
I don't mind them as long as they don't fly over me right after dinner.
Beef product manufacturers in the UK have a hard time distinguishing between the two right now!
Originally Posted by jfb
Calling Doctor Ned! Phobia dissection and otherwise general head shrinkage needed in aisle 3.
Originally Posted by sergiodeblanc
Thanks you for shopping with us today.;)
Anything with an indiscernable profile. I was traumatized when I found out that the turtle on my 24th fret was really an owl. :eek: Single cell organisms - out. Anything in the larval stage - out. Spectators at a football game, as seen from a blimp - out. Snot Sea Cucumbers - out!
Originally Posted by Shultzie
I'm a big bird fan, and a non-serious, amateur bird-watcher. My favorites are the bird of prey. But at the other end of the size spectrum, hummingbirds are awesome as well. We have a couple of feeders and a bird bath in the yard, and have also tried to have a fair amount of flowers of the kind that hummingbirds like, so we have a pretty good bird population in the yard.
Being in the San Francisco Bay Area, there are a lot of opportunities for seeing a wide variety of birds, without having to travel that far. Our immediate environment is sort of a semi-arid chaparral environment, but with enough trees in the subdivisions to also attract many of the kinds of songbirds that live in wooded areas. And the coast is less than an hour away, for seeing shorebirds, and in the opposite direction you have the wintering wetlands used by thousands upon thousands of ducks, herons, egrets, sandhill cranes, etc. (part of the Pacific Flyway). A few hours away is the high Sierra, with mountain-habitat birds. Plenty of hawks and owls all over, plus some eagles (mostly golden, but the occasional bald eagle), and less than two hours away is an area with a small number of the rare California condors.
For those who don't like birds, Alfred Hitchcock's movie "The Birds" was set (and filmed in part) in Bodega Bay, which is about 50 miles north of San Francisco.
Call me Ned again...I dare you....I double dog dare you. I have a team of Navy SEALS descending on Han's house as I type this, ready to begin a series of tortures so malevolent, so medieval...that even the most callous individual would have to turn their head....until he renounces the "Ned" moniker. I am NOT Ned!!!!
Originally Posted by Boogie
Ok...rant over with.
That being said...by coincidence....I always found the Eagle to be my favorite animal. Strong....able to fly....keen eyesight....very cool creature. Then, low and behold....it becomes that symbol of the PRS private stock and an inlay.
I dunno about this renunciation thing. Here you are in this virtual frathouse, lucky enough to have been dubbed by your peers with a singular nickname that no one else not actually named Ned gets to use, and you're in rejection mode.
Can you imagine the Deltas at Faber College without Bluto, Otter, Boon, Flounder and Pinto?
Of course not!
"Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: [whispering] Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
[runs out, alone; then returns]
What the **** happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my *** from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this."
You're NED, man! Wear the name with pride! Who else on this board gets to be Ned, the Destroyer? Huh? No one!
By the way Ned, that's "lo and behold" not "low and behold." "Lo" is a 17th Century version of the word, "look." So the phrase means "look and observe," (and the implication is to be astonished), it means nothing using the word, "low." Lesson in King James' Bible usage over. For now. ;)
Oh, you're thinking that was a mere typo? You actually understand the correct usage?
Well, pardon me for living.
"Pardon me for living," was something my 8th grade English teacher used to say when the class would roll their eyeballs at her extremely picky critiques. She was 1000 years old then, as far as we were concerned, a hag (of maybe 35) who at any moment was likely to die of old age.
And now I'm the old hag, but only when I put on a 1963 version of a teacher dress and a wig. I'm usually far more up to date.
Les.....allow me to repeat....politely... I'm not Ned. I'd continue this discussion in the "Point-Counter-point Forum, but apparently the moderators don't want to have a running documentaiton of our "discussions". :o
Imagine a world without birds chirp....i even like the raspy chatter of the magpie couple near my place :)
In order for me to renounce it....it means that at one time I would have accepted/embraced it.
Originally Posted by LSchefman
Therefore (and William Safire would certainly approve) I can "denounce" Ned, but to "renounce" him, I would have had to have accepted and proselytized him at some point.
Actually, that is not the case. There is a usage of the word that does not require prior acceptance:
Originally Posted by docbennett
verb [ with obj. ]
• refuse to recognize or abide by any longer"
In this case, you are refusing to recognize or abide by the appellation 'Ned'. By refusing to abide, you are "unable to tolerate" the name.
As to prior acceptance, I remind you that at first, you did tolerate it, and even accepted it. I recall posts that you signed "Ned the Destroyer." I'm not going to look them up, however. You can do that.
Also, silence on a matter can be deemed to be acceptance. I'd say that you did accept it. We might disagree over that, but I am prepared to move for partial summary judgment on whether my usage is correct under FRCP 56. ;)
Lo and Behold! Bennett renounceth the Ned name!
Having renounced the name (note my superb usage of the past pluperfect), what do you want us to call you now?
The PRS Experience 2013 should offer a sumo-showdown booth for Les and DocBennett to have a face off.
Actually, Bennett and I enjoy this back-and-forth battle of words. It keeps our minds sharp, and it's entertaining (for us).
Originally Posted by Blackbird
I'm not really the type of person who'd attend an Experience, though I would enjoy wearing that costume!
OK..here is the deal....The Reagan Administration and Mohammar Qaddafi split hairs over the definition. Qaddafi was willing to denounce terrorism. The White-house insisted upon his renouncing it. I forget who won. I guess the point is moot now.
And, silence cannot be considered "tacit acceptance" if Hans hadn't sent an ultrasonic transmitter along with the signed playing card, and anytime I attempt to verbalize my "denunciation" I get this friggin' shock.
OK...what was that about Birds?
I didn't know "Ned" bugged you. In fact, I thought you liked the nickname.
I won't call you Ned anymore.
No politics, please.
Hey Hans...I was exaggerating....it was hyperbole...while I will say that I'm not thrilled with the moniker....it did give me a chance to riff once again with my favorite protagonist.
Originally Posted by ]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! ©
No hard feelings. And the politics were merely an exercise in history. I'm actually familiar with that particular anecdote because I used to read the William Safire column in the Sunday Times and he used that exact example to describe the difference between "denounce" and "renounce".
Anyway...no hard feelings. Bennett (the bird) Opraman (another obscure reference) :D
Proving once again that you can't believe everything you read! ;)
Originally Posted by docbennett
I always wondered if Safire was the guy behind Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativity" phrase in speeches when he was Nixon's speechwriter (this is not political, it is a factual question about historical figures).