Fecal Fertility

Typo of the Year?

"Jorg Lueke" wrote in message
news
Typo of the Year?

huh?

Jorg Lueke
Typo of the Year?

Waste matter aside, your letter to the editor in the June CELATOR
caught my eye. Ed Snible's work on the Perseus coins was also
interesting. I had the pleasure of mentioning his website in the June
Numismatist.

As for hiring a "full time" lobbyist, what that really involves is
hiring a lobbyist who will have other clients as well as the Ancient
Coin Community. A "full time" lobbyist would cost $100,000 a year or
more in a state like Michigan and we are actually talking about
Washington DC, so it just seems prohibitive. Also, within numismatics
ICTA and others do lobby, though admittedly not on our specific
concerns. Even so, all in all, I find the idea interesting. Are you
volunteering to knock on doors?

Michael

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 03:35:26 GMT, MarkR wrote:

"Jorg Lueke" wrote in message
news
Typo of the Year?

huh?

There is an article in this month's Celator by one of RCC's favorite
posters. At one point medusa is described as representing feral fertility
(I assume this was the intent) but the typo made me laugh.

On 5 Jun 2004 03:33:13 -0700, Michael E. Marotta
wrote:

Jorg Lueke
Typo of the Year?

Waste matter aside, your letter to the editor in the June CELATOR
caught my eye. Ed Snible's work on the Perseus coins was also
interesting. I had the pleasure of mentioning his website in the June
Numismatist.

As for hiring a "full time" lobbyist, what that really involves is
hiring a lobbyist who will have other clients as well as the Ancient
Coin Community. A "full time" lobbyist would cost $100,000 a year or
more in a state like Michigan and we are actually talking about
Washington DC, so it just seems prohibitive. Also, within numismatics
ICTA and others do lobby, though admittedly not on our specific
concerns. Even so, all in all, I find the idea interesting. Are you
volunteering to knock on doors?

Apparently there is one lobbyist who does work for coin collectors, Peter
Tompa. In corresponding with Mr.Sayles his intent was really more of a
large organization which could conteract the ongoing efforts of the AIA.
Oddly enough, the ANA is very similar to the AIA in size, resources, and
structure but I don't think DC watch dog is a tole they will take on.

Personally I am still struggling to identify what would be the most
effective tool for coin collectors at a federal level. Also the
distinction in interest between US, modern world, ancient coins, and
antiquities collectors raises some questions.

Perhaps we should simply embrace the proposed regulations and start a
laser, micro-etching business t help collectors track their collections
and prove provenence.

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 20:23:46 -0500, Jorg Lueke
wrote:

Typo of the Year?

You should cut out the "favorite poster" junk and think things through
a little better. This wasn't a typo. One of the many interpretations
offered over the years of the deeper meaning of the Medusa image is as
a symbol of fecal fertility, meaning the life-giving powers of animal
and human waste. Think fertilizer. I mentioned in this article well
over a dozen of these interpretations and prefaced this by saying that
some are pretty farfetched but all, I felt, were interesting,
including this one, pointing as they do to Medusa's
"interpretability."

Reid Goldsborough wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 20:23:46 -0500, Jorg Lueke
wrote:


Typo of the Year?


You should cut out the "favorite poster" junk and think things through
a little better. This wasn't a typo. One of the many interpretations
offered over the years of the deeper meaning of the Medusa image is as
a symbol of fecal fertility, meaning the life-giving powers of animal
and human waste. Think fertilizer. I mentioned in this article well
over a dozen of these interpretations and prefaced this by saying that
some are pretty farfetched but all, I felt, were interesting,
including this one, pointing as they do to Medusa's
"interpretability."

Of course you find it interesting. What other explanation could there be
for why you are consistently found to be either wallowing in / revelling
in pure sh*te (in one form or another).

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that you and this chap Breen may
share similar traits.

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:25:45 -0400, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 20:23:46 -0500, Jorg Lueke
wrote:

Typo of the Year?

You should cut out the "favorite poster" junk and think things through
a little better. This wasn't a typo. One of the many interpretations
offered over the years of the deeper meaning of the Medusa image is as
a symbol of fecal fertility, meaning the life-giving powers of animal
and human waste. Think fertilizer. I mentioned in this article well
over a dozen of these interpretations and prefaced this by saying that
some are pretty farfetched but all, I felt, were interesting,
including this one, pointing as they do to Medusa's
"interpretability."

You've given many interpretations indeed. Some make more sense to me than
others but that doesn't really matter, it's not a matter of right and
wrong. As far as fecal fertility goes, it is the one expression that most
caught my eye out of many you made. Overall I think you overemphasized
the sexual connotations at the expense of the remainder of the article.
You devote five paragraphs to the psychosexual explanation, which like the
last paragraph in your opening I find gratuitous. The fecal fertilty
remark topped it all off for me.

In short, this reader found some of your salacious expressions and focus
on psychosexuality distracting from the remainder of the article. If you
wanted to be remembered for at leats parts of this article you have
succeeded.

As far as being a favorite poster, I will attempt to refer to you by name
going forward.

"Jorg Lueke" provides:

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 03:35:26 GMT, MarkR wrote:

"Jorg Lueke" wrote in message
news
Typo of the Year?

huh?

There is an article in this month's Celator by one of RCC's favorite
posters. At one point medusa is described as representing feral fertility
(I assume this was the intent) but the typo made me laugh.

Going a little off-subject here, but I have to have the Typo of the Year. Last
November, we went completely OT and ended up having a short discussion about
Gilligan's Island, i.e. what are/were the names of the castaways? Even though
I thought I knew the answers, I wanted to double check, so I tried "Gilligan's
Island DOT com" (which is not the website, BTW).

Now, my grandson was sitting on my lap when I punched the website into my
browser. Unfortunately, I missed the second "G" in Gilligan. When the site
came up, he looked at the screen and yelled, "BOOBIES!" You figure out what
happened. :-)

Jerry

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:07:26 -0500, Jorg Lueke
wrote:

You've given many interpretations indeed. Some make more sense to me than
others but that doesn't really matter, it's not a matter of right and
wrong.

Agreed.

As far as fecal fertility goes, it is the one expression that most
caught my eye out of many you made.

It is an odd interpretation, I agree. But so is the entire Medusa
phenomenon, both in ancient times and today, when you get down to it.

Overall I think you overemphasized
the sexual connotations at the expense of the remainder of the article.
You devote five paragraphs to the psychosexual explanation, which like the
last paragraph in your opening I find gratuitous. The fecal fertilty
remark topped it all off for me.

In short, this reader found some of your salacious expressions and focus
on psychosexuality distracting from the remainder of the article. If you
wanted to be remembered for at leats parts of this article you have
succeeded.

I respect your opinion, and your right to it. I disagree though that
the article or even this part of it was in any way salacious. This
word's primary meaning is "stimulating sexual desire." I don't think
Medusa does that! Because the psychosexual interpretation of Medusa
has a long history -- Freud, Goethe, and Dante all interpreted her
this way -- I chose to devote part of my article to this, in all ...
let's see ... 364 words out of 7,328, which comprises less than 5
percent of the article's text. I would hardly call this
overemphasizing it. g