Italic type

Italic type refers to a cursive typeface based on a stylized form of calligraphic handwriting.

Italic type is used for the following things:

• emphasis


• the titles of works that stand by themselves


• the names of ships


• foreign words


• use-mention distinction


• introducing terms


• the latin binary nomenclature, in the taxonomy of living organisms


• symbols for physical quantities and other mathematical variables

"Italic type." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 25 Apr 2006, 21:31 UTC. 29 Apr 2006, 00:48 .

Italic type is not should not be used for:

• direct quotes


• indirect quotes

An example of how not to use italic type:

• “His most rational response to my attempts at drawing him out about literature and art was 'I adore italics, don't you?'” --Siegfried Sassoon

Foie gras

Introduction
Foie gras is the fattened liver of a duck or goose. In the production of foie gras, the animals are fed through a feeding tube which many people view as being inhumane. However, many studies have shown that the process not only causes no damage to the animals, but they don't feel any discomfort as they lack a gag reflex and have much tougher esophogi than humans.

Ancient History
It turns out that people have been eating this stuff since at least 2500 B.C. Can you believe it? There are bas relief depictions of Egyptian slaves overfeeding geese so that their livers can be harvested and eaten. Interestingly, in 2450 B.C., an Egyptican provincial governor (known as nomarchs) named Laomoodreej proposed a ban on the production and sale of the delicacy. Fortunately for lovers of the food, the pharaoh had the unpopular nomarch executed.

As the Romans took over the planet, they too became fond of foie gras, stuffing their geese with figs -- the word "ficatum" which means "figs" eventually became the root for the word "foie" which means "liver." The Romans, with their love of food and orgies never had an issue with anyone attempting to ban anything.

After the fall of the Roman empire, foie gras seems to have vanished from European cuisine. Fortunately for us, Jews, being unable to use lard due to dietary restrictions, revived the tradition of shoving food down the throats of geese and ducks in order to use the fatty liver for cooking. Their love of the food soon faded, but not before others picked up on it again. In 1570, a scant 92 years after Ferdinand and Isabella began trying, torturing and executing Jews in the name of the Catholic Church, the Pope's chef published a cookbook in which he wrote that the Jews were able to produce duck and goose livers weighing over three pounds. There is no proven connection between the Spanish Inquisition and the Jewish propensity towards force-fed waterfowl, but experts have recently uncovered some evidence that says there may be something to that theory.

Current Production and Controversy
Currently, it is the French who produce most of the world's foie gras with 80% of the world's production coming from that country. 30,000 people are involved in that industry in the country. Fearful of European attempts to ban foie gras, French legislators passed a law declaring foie gras to be an important part of France's history and culture, granting it the same protections given to the Eiffel Tower.

In an ironic move, the Supreme Court of Israel has banned production of foie gras in the entire country. The people who once excelled at the creation of the tasty dish have decided to put down their food pellets and hang up their feeding tubes.

Following in Israel's footsteps, the Illinois Senate has passed a law banning production in the state. It was a pretty bold move considering that there has never been a foie gras farm anywhere near Illinois. More forceful, perhaps, is the recent ban on the serving of foie gras at restaurants in the city of Chicago -- a city known as "the hog butcher to the world."

• "Joe Banks, 82 years young, has come to this pond every day for the past 17 years to feed the ducks. But last month Joe made a discovery: the ducks were gone." -- Bart Simpson


• “If you feel the urge, don't be afraid to go on a wild goose chase. What do you think wild geese are for anyway?” -- Will Rogers


• “Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in.” -- Confucius

Pluralis majestatis

Pluralis majestatis or "the royal we" is a plural pronoun used to refer to one person alone. Its usage is often restricted to "royalty" -- monarchs, Popes, etc. -- who are always speaking not just for themselves, but also for their people.

Similar to the royal we is the "editorial we" used by journalists. With the editorial we, the people for whom the writer is speaking is the staff of the news organization for which the writer works. Interestingly, usage of the editorial we has spread to blogs, but bloggers often work for no organization. In this case they are not necessarily speaking for "their people" but rather are creating a professional distance between themselves and that which they write. For example, Jeralyn, of TalkLeft discussed at length the idea of using the editorial "we" vs. "I" in her posts, even going so far as to experiment with using "I" for a week. Judging by the most recent entries on her site, it seems that "I" came out on top.

• “We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. They do not exist.” -- Queen Victoria


• "We are not impressed." -- Christina Guskweck


• “Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'” -- Mark Twain

Imitation

Imitation is "an advanced animal behavior whereby an individual observes another's behaviour and replicates it itself." It's also known as aping, thus the picture above.

It's been said to be the highest form of flattery.

So when I do this and then see this, it makes me feel so good!

Messianic complex

A messianic complex is a psychological state in which someone believes himself to be the savior of the world. This may take shape in many forms: from a subtle quietly held belief of his divine nature to outright declaration of their status as the son of God.

Throughout history, many people have claimed to be Jesus, most recently, Marshall Applewhite, leader of the Heaven's Gate Cult.


Some more links: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Yellow Journalism

Yellow journalism "is a pejorative reference given to various practices or tendencies of news media organizations which, by the standards of journalistic professionalism, are considered to be unprofessional and detrimental to the principles of journalistic integrity as a whole."

In other words: crappy, sensationalizing, tabloid "press." It's stuff that's not worth reading. It's not worth listening to. It's not worth watching. It's poorly written, devoid of content, and completely without merit. Sometimes it's referred to as "infotainment" -- a combination of information and entertainment -- but for my money, there's not enough of either to merit that description.

You can find it everywhere: from tabloid newspapers and their sensationlist headlines to Fox news and Walter Jacobson's hyper-dramatic, over-enunciated drivel. It's an obvious -- yet effective -- technique to sell more papers and gain more viewers. People love the overly dramatic and will flock to it. This translates directly into more money in the pockets of the companies that own the media.

Interestingly, this sort of "journalism" has made its way into personal blogsites. Some bloggers have made their "careers" on the practice of treating the smallest things as big news; creating controversy where there is none; and creating a mob rule atmosphere. By creating a culture of fear, these bloggers have effectively rallied people to their cause -- vague though that cause may be -- and continue to create an "us against them" atmosphere without even clearly defining what the sides are. Because there is no money (none that I can see, anyway) involved, I can only assume that it's a popularity contest, or a cry for help and attention.


Some links:

• Blogging as Journalism: A Defense


• Is Blogging Journalism?


• Wikipedia:Journalism Ethics and Standards

Cut and paste (copied and pasted)

In human-computer interaction, cut and paste or copy and paste is a user interface paradigm for transferring text, data, files or objects from a source to a destination. Most ubiquitous is the ability to cut and paste sections of plain text. This paradigm is closely associated with graphical user interfaces that use pointing devices.
The term cut and paste derives from the traditional practice in manuscript editing in which paragraphs were literally cut from a page with scissors and physically pasted onto another page. This was standard practice as late as the 1960s. Editing scissors with blades long enough to cut an 8-1/2"-wide page were available at stationery stores. The advent of photocopiers made the practice easier and more flexible.
The cut-and-paste paradigm was widely popularized by Apple in the Lisa (1981) and Macintosh (1984) operating systems and applications. It was mapped to a key combination consisting of a special control key held down while typing the letters X (for cut), C (for copy), and V (for paste). Similar key combinations were later adopted by Microsoft in Windows. Common User Architecture (in Windows and OS/2) also uses combinations of the Insert, Del, Shift and Control keys. Some environments allow cutting and pasting with a computer mouse (by drag and drop, for example).

Copy and paste

Copy-and-paste refers to the popular, simple method of reproducing text or other data from a source to a destination, which is only different from cut and paste in that the original source text or data is not deleted or removed as it is with the latter process.
Copying can be performed on most graphical user interface systems using the key combinations Ctrl+C (in UNIX environment used for killing the running process) or Ctrl+Ins (the former being more widely supported), or by using some other method, such as a context menu or a toolbar button. Once data have been copied into the area of memory referred to as the clipboard, they can be pasted into a destination using the key combinations Ctrl+V or Shift+Insert, or methods dependent on the system. Macintosh computers use the key combinations Command+C and Command+V. In the X Window System, selecting text copies it to a clipboard, while middle-clicking pastes.
The popularity of this method stems from its simplicity and the ease with which data can be moved between various applications without resorting to permanent storage.

"Cut and paste." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 12 Apr 2006, 14:46 UTC. 12 Apr 2006, 22:00 .

• “I say that I can't make anything up. I think of myself as a collage artist. I'm cutting and pasting memories of my life. And I say, I have to live a life in order to tell a life. I would prefer to tell it because telling you're always in control, you're like God.” -- Spalding Gray


• “If you want to be successful, find someone who has achieved the results you want and copy what they do and you'll achieve the same results.” -- Anthony Robbins


• “Success is dangerous. One begins to copy oneself, and to copy oneself is more dangerous than to copy others. It leads to sterility.” -- Pablo Picasso

Cut and paste

In human-computer interaction, cut and paste or copy and paste is a user interface paradigm for transferring text, data, files or objects from a source to a destination. Most ubiquitous is the ability to cut and paste sections of plain text. This paradigm is closely associated with graphical user interfaces that use pointing devices.
The term cut and paste derives from the traditional practice in manuscript editing in which paragraphs were literally cut from a page with scissors and physically pasted onto another page. This was standard practice as late as the 1960s. Editing scissors with blades long enough to cut an 8-1/2"-wide page were available at stationery stores. The advent of photocopiers made the practice easier and more flexible.
The cut-and-paste paradigm was widely popularized by Apple in the Lisa (1981) and Macintosh (1984) operating systems and applications. It was mapped to a key combination consisting of a special control key held down while typing the letters X (for cut), C (for copy), and V (for paste). Similar key combinations were later adopted by Microsoft in Windows. Common User Architecture (in Windows and OS/2) also uses combinations of the Insert, Del, Shift and Control keys. Some environments allow cutting and pasting with a computer mouse (by drag and drop, for example).

Copy and paste

Copy-and-paste refers to the popular, simple method of reproducing text or other data from a source to a destination, which is only different from cut and paste in that the original source text or data is not deleted or removed as it is with the latter process.
Copying can be performed on most graphical user interface systems using the key combinations Ctrl+C (in UNIX environment used for killing the running process) or Ctrl+Ins (the former being more widely supported), or by using some other method, such as a context menu or a toolbar button. Once data have been copied into the area of memory referred to as the clipboard, they can be pasted into a destination using the key combinations Ctrl+V or Shift+Insert, or methods dependent on the system. Macintosh computers use the key combinations Command+C and Command+V. In the X Window System, selecting text copies it to a clipboard, while middle-clicking pastes.
The popularity of this method stems from its simplicity and the ease with which data can be moved between various applications without resorting to permanent storage.

"Cut and paste." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 12 Apr 2006, 14:46 UTC. 12 Apr 2006, 22:00 .

• “I say that I can't make anything up. I think of myself as a collage artist. I'm cutting and pasting memories of my life. And I say, I have to live a life in order to tell a life. I would prefer to tell it because telling you're always in control, you're like God.” -- Spalding Gray


• “If you want to be successful, find someone who has achieved the results you want and copy what they do and you'll achieve the same results.” -- Anthony Robbins


• “Success is dangerous. One begins to copy oneself, and to copy oneself is more dangerous than to copy others. It leads to sterility.” -- Pablo Picasso

Coherence

Coherence, in language, is basically a state when things all fit together to make sense. Being coherent takes a lot of things working in the right way when speaking. A speaker must know the right language to use for his audience and he must also know the right words to use in that language. He must also speak clearly and concisely, in an appropriate manner to suit his audience. The written language has a few benefits for coherence's sake: namely, the ability to really think about what words one will use; less potential for "stage fright" causing nervousness; and the use of technology (such as spell checkers and online reference libraries.)

That said, there are some amazingly incoherent writers out there. I know I'm a stickler for details such as spelling and grammar. I admit that sometimes I'm too harsh when it comes to judging these things. People say, "As long as you know what I'm trying to say, does it matter if everything's spelled correctly?" To a certain extent, I can agree with that. The most important thing when writing something is getting your meaning across -- if a typo or grammatical error pops up here or there, what's the big deal?

A writer must be careful, however, that he does not lose credibility through repeated mistakes. A reader will make judgments on the trustworthiness of an article and its author based on the evidence they have available. With the absence of a physical presence, the writer's words are the main things a reader can use. If the writer's words are misspelled or misused, a reader might dismiss the writer's arguments without even paying attention to what they are. Take for example these two (hypothetical) statements:

"teh simpsons r teh best shoe on tv simpsons r rulez!"

"'The Simpsons' is a TV show that has absolutely no merit whatsoever and should be removed from the airwaves."

Now, because of the childish and poorly written nature of the first statement, one might be inclined to disassociate oneself from the writer to the point of disagreeing with the content. Even though the writer's point is made and is (mostly) coherent, the obvious lack of attention paid to the form of the message is sure to turn many a reader off.

Real problems (beyond the reaction of your readers) arise when statements become so confusing that a reader can't tease even the slightest bit of meaning out of the content. It is possible to write in such a convoluted and confusing manner that a reader is just left shaking his head, wondering what the writer had in mind. It is sometimes amazing that an intelligent and capable person who speaks the same language as his readers could create something that is so incoherent that no message is relayed at all. Much of this could be avoided if the writer would just take a minute to reread what he's written and ask himself, "Does this make sense? Is this how I would have spoken this argument?" Reading the work out loud can also help. Best of all, having someone else read the content will go a long way towards ensuring that everything that the writer intends will come through clearly and without any confusion.

• "The shift from incoherence to coherence can bring dramatic effects." -- William Tiller


• “These conflicting messages reflect a lack of clarity and coherence." -- Michael Shifter

Retronym

Retronyms are words coined for the purpose of describing an object or concept whose original name is no longer unique. Often, these words are necessitated by the advent of technology -- such as when email and voicemail became prevalent, the term "snail mail" came into being. Also, the invention of the electric guitar brought along the term "acoustic guitar."

However, there are also non-technological retronyms. Before World War II, World War I was known as "The Great War" or "The War to End All Wars." And when a sequel to a movie comes out, the original is often commonly referred to as (for example) "Jaws 1" or "Star Trek 1."

Wikipedia

It should come as no surprise that I love Wikipedia.org. According to Wikipedia's own entry, it is a "multilingual Web-based free-content encyclopedia." Wikipedia is also known as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Anybody who spends a little time learning the formatting standards and methods (look at the Wikipedia Wikipedia Boot Camp for help) can edit, add to, and create articles on the site, contributing their knowledge and expertise to that of the community. It's a truly amazing model for information collection and dispersion, putting control of the information in the hands of the users.

These users form a community that is dedicated to research and education. One amazing feature of the site is the reference desk where one can ask a question about any topic that is not easily found in the encyclopedia. The other users on the site will contribute their thoughts and comments on the topic.

Wikipedia's main strength can also be its biggest weakness -- by creating a community-based site and calling it an "encyclopedia" it makes it possible for people to publish false and malicious information in a trusted forum. However, a conscientious researcher will always consider his or her source carefully before considering the information to be factual. With the advent of the internet and the ability for anybody to publish anything, this is even more important.

Worse than information that is incomplete or incorrect is information that is purposely misleading, irrelevant or inconsistent with the mission of the site. Take for example the John Siegenthaler biography controversy in which a Wikipedia user edited the biography entry for John Siegenthaler Sr., suggesting that he had a role in the Kennedy assassination.

Other people may edit entries and add information that is completely irrelevant to the article. For instance, there is the recent bit of editing of the "smoke and mirrors" article in which a user has attempted to a statement about the 49th Ward of Chicago's tendency to make use of "smoke and mirrors." Fortunately, it is easy to revert the article to a state where it better fits in with the purpose of the site, and it is also possible to see what other edits this user has made and hopefully put a stop to it. (See the article's edit history and the activities of 24.12.63.77.

• "[H]owever closely a Wikipedia article may at some point in its life attain to reliability, it is forever open to the uninformed or semiliterate meddler." - Former Encyclopedia Britannica editor Robert McHenry in an oft-cited 2004 piece The Faith-Based Encyclopedia.


• "Wikipedia knows all, and what it doesn't know, you can tell it." - Shaye Horwitz


• "The real problem is not Wikipedia, but reporters who fail to check their facts." - Joseph Wilson


• "Only an idiot and a thug would scribble nonsense in a library book." - Alison Hess Garcia