| Bob (this one) |
Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:10gjvdoij8kor39@corp.supernews.com:=20
>=20
>>But you so deliberately miss the point and bring out the
>>belligerence for some reason. I haven't contradicted anything
>>you've said. I didn't disagree with anything you said. The
>>principle I elaborated is a basic element of marketing.
>
> Ok, perhaps I considered your example to be more self-interested than=20
> it actually was.
> =20
>=20
>>>They are made from rolled dough left over when baking pies. You
>>>don't make them to sell them. You make them and eat them. And
>>>yes, they are called pets de nonnes and people DO eat them
>>>nonetheless. Perhaps it's because we're not flaming prudes, eh?
>>
>>And perhaps it's the same phenomenon that happens in every culture
>>where a shocking image is done with good humor as a shared joke.=20
>=20
> Nun's farts...shocking image? You *are* a prude! :-)
Michel, I didn't invent the name. Some French-speaker did. It's a=20
well-recognized phenomenon in every culture that the slightly naughty=20
adds a note of humor. In the US, beer can openers are often called=20
"church keys" for the same reason. No prudery involved, more a matter=20
of cheekiness and a small venture from the proper.
>>Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.=20
>=20
> I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I am=20
> merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to demands=20
> from certain groups=20
There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in=20
advance to alter the name from rape to something else. And this isn't=20
the only example of that specific name change. Greengrocers in=20
English-speaking cultures call the vegetable "broccoli-rabe" to avoid=20
the whole question of connotations.
Like calling it Kiwifruit instead of Chinese gooseberry. Like calling=20
it mahi mahi instead of "dolphin." Connotations. People erroneously=20
assume it's Flipper's sister when they hear the name. Seafood=20
suppliers and restaurants have tried to explain the difference for=20
decades. When you're dealing with a few hundred million people, the=20
relentless explanations get old. Change the name and it's done.
People like Chilean Sea Bass but not Patagonian toothfish. Connotations.
> because they don't like the *sound* of a word. =20
> It would be like changing the name Christian to something else=20
> because atheists got their knickers in a twist.=20
This is exactly what it *isn't* about. No one got in a twist.
> You assume the use of the term Canola (Canadian oil, light acid) is a=20
> direct result of annoyance to the name "rape" when referring to=20
> Brassica napus. But in reality, the point is that "rape" and=20
> "Brassica napus" could not be trademarked and the point was to=20
> trademark the name. So they came up with a name they could=20
> trademark.
It seems that you've been given wrong information on a few points.=20
Here's a quote from: <http://www.canola-council.org/about/thetruth.html>
Q: Olive oil comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil=20
from sunflowers, but where does canola oil come from--is canola oil=20
rapeseed oil?
A: No. Canola oil comes from canola seed. Canola is the name given to=20
a very healthy oil that was developed from rapeseed. But it is not=20
rapeseed oil and has vastly different fatty acid and other properties=20
than rapeseed oil. Canola was developed using traditional plant=20
breeding methods to remove undesirable qualities in rapeseed. In terms=20
of their properties, canola oil is as different from rapeseed oil as=20
olive oil is as different from corn oil.
<<<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>
They could have spelled it "Wrape" and trademarked it. It was the=20
sound and its associations they were trying to get away from.
BTW, the name "canola" isn't trademarked. No mandatory capital=20
letters, no circle tm, no circle R. These people had to add a word so=20
they could register a name: <http://www.canola.com/canada/index.htm>
>>>It sounds so much like "rip" too, while you're at it. Or "ripe"
>>>if you're from London, or parts of the sound of "cr=EApe"...I leave
>>>it to your over"ripe" imagination to find more sounds you'd like
>>>removed because you find them offensive, or think others might.
>>>Remind me to yawn when you report back.
>>
>>I'll remind you about English-named products that sponsored images
>>that French speakers rejected because of associations they didn't
>>like.=20
>>
>>Pet milk means fart milk in French. Didn't sell well for the same
>>reasons that rape seed isn't salable.
>>
>>Cue toothpaste didn't sell well because it reminded the French
>>speakers of you. It means (phonically) asshole toothpaste, as you
>>certainly know.
>=20
> Ok, but again you're mixing your examples. We're speaking of a name=20
> within the language. You come out with examples of names that cross=20
> languages. These words have no other meaning in French whereas rape=20
> does have two meanings in English. Faulty faulty...
Nah. It has everything to do with associations.
The secondary meaning of "rape" - a plant - is so far away from what=20
the average person would think that it's essentially not in=20
consideration. For the vast preponderance of English speakers, there's=20
only one meaning for the word. Rape greens and rape seeds are=20
virtually unknown as such in the US, and even when they are, the word=20
gets a cautious pronunciation for all the obvious reasons.
Why does this page exist?=20
<http://www.dazbert.co.uk/sites/rude...ood/pocariswea=
t.htm>
>>I don't understand your anger and rudeness, Michel. There really=20
>>wasn't anything to fight about.=20
>=20
> How am I being rude? Perhaps sharp and punctilious, but hardly rude.=20
Right. Your child is vulgar and disgusting, mine expresses himself fully.=
> I have not farted in your general direction, have I? :-)
Eat some rape greens. You'll fart in all directions.
Pastorio (maybe drink some Pocari Sweat from Japan. Next big thing, I=20
tell ya...)
> And I realize that the Chinese brands White Elephant battery and=20
> Pansy men's clothing did not make it to the States, not under those=20
> names anyway. I did however obtain one White Elephant battery, 9v,=20
> in a giveaway calculator at a conference I attended many years ago.
|
|
|
| Bob (this one) |
Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:10gl7giab7a7jc0@corp.supernews.com:=20
>=20
>>>>Your particular obtuseness here is puzzling.=20
>>>
>>>I'm flexible with a foreign (to me) language and *I*'m obtuse? I
>>>am merely saying that it is an unreasonable action to cave in to
>>>demands from certain groups=20
>>
>>There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in=20
>>advance to alter the name from rape to something else.=20
>=20
> Yes there were. Did you miss that part?
I wasn't clear in my statement. There was no outcry in the US. Because=20
it wasn't raised as an issue. It was a non-issue here in the bigger=20
market.
>>And this
>>isn't the only example of that specific name change. Greengrocers
>>in English-speaking cultures call the vegetable "broccoli-rabe" to
>>avoid the whole question of connotations.
>>
>>Like calling it Kiwifruit instead of Chinese gooseberry. Like
>>calling it mahi mahi instead of "dolphin." Connotations.=20
>=20
> Uh uh. Rape was a term used in some form or other since Old English. =
> We're not talking about a new entry into the language or an exotic=20
> fruit.
No. We're talking about a word with profoundly unpleasant=20
connotations. As your Canadian brethren demonstrated in apparently=20
great detail. They didn't like how it felt to be saying it. They=20
didn't want to eat stuff called that. Simple.
You may take it up with them about their moral failings, weakness of=20
character or their stupidity or whatever you want to attribute it to,=20
but the fact is that people - all people - don't like saying words=20
with bad, bad connotations. An automobile called Foutu likely wouldn't=20
sell very well in Quebec. It makes a lot of sense not to try to buck=20
that taboo if you want to sell stuff. A resistant market makes for=20
early retirement of the sellers.
>>People
>>erroneously assume it's Flipper's sister when they hear the name.
>>Seafood suppliers and restaurants have tried to explain the
>>difference for decades. When you're dealing with a few hundred
>>million people, the relentless explanations get old. Change the
>>name and it's done.=20
>=20
> Farmers in the region of Saskatchewan where the plant was grown still=20
> refer to it as rapeseed. They know what they're talking about.
The Japanese used rapeseed cakes to fertilize bonsai. Both of these=20
facts are irrelevant to the question about why the name was changed.
Those farmers have variously called it Polish rapeseed and Argentinean=20
rapeseed and other names. Farmers around here pronounce "teats" on=20
their dairy cows as "tits" and the city folks flinch when they do.=20
Both know what they're talking about.
I always go to farmers when I want correct taxonomic information. And=20
I go to bakers when I'm looking for astronomical data. Paleontologists=20
for metallurgy. They know what they're talking about.
>>It seems that you've been given wrong information on a few points.
>>Here's a quote from:
>><http://www.canola-council.org/about/thetruth.html> Q: Olive oil
>>comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil from
>>sunflowers, but where does canola oil come from--is canola oil=20
>>rapeseed oil?=20
>=20
> Canola is Brassica napus, rape is Brassicus napus. Canola is rape. =20
> What the **** you talkin' 'bout, Willis?
>=20
> http://www.floridata.com/ref/b/bras_nap.cfm
You ought to really read your own citations. This one says:
"Brassica napus is a variable species, divided into three groups or=20
subspecies: B. n. napobrassica includes the rutabagas (a.k.a. Swedes=20
in England), grown for their enlarged turniplike swollen stems; B. n.=20
pabularia includes Siberian kale and Hanover salad, grown for leafy=20
kalelike greens; and B. n. oleifera includes rape and canola, (colza=20
in India) grown for edible leaves, as forage crops for livestock, or=20
for the seeds from which vegetable oil is made."
Note the distinctions between turnips and rape even though they're=20
both B. napus. They have the same biological names but are obviously=20
very different. It's patently silly to say, "Rutabaga is Brassica=20
napus, rape is Brassicus napus. Rutabaga is rape." That's where your=20
statement leads. Do fix the spelling.
And note the distinction between rape and canola. Obviously, they=20
consider them different as the following says:
"Canola is grown commercially in Canada and some parts of the US.=20
Scientists at the University of Florida are currently field-testing=20
canola as a potential winter crop in the South."
See, from your own citation, a distinction.
>>BTW, the name "canola" isn't trademarked. No mandatory capital=20
>>letters, no circle tm, no circle R. These people had to add a word
>>so they could register a name:
>><http://www.canola.com/canada/index.htm>=20
>=20
>=20
> You really should go to the source, Bobo.
Yes. Let's, Mickey...
> From the Canola Council of=20
> Canada (please note 1978):
> 1954: Golden, the first Canadian Brassica napus rapeseed variety, was=20
> licensed.
> 1974: Tower, the first canola, was released. This new B. napus variety =
> meant that Canada could now produce oil and meal which was=20
> nutritionally superior to that produced from rapeseed in other parts of=
=20
> the world.
> 1977: Candle, the first B. rapa canola variety, was released.
Obviously you missed the part where they said that Golden, Tower and=20
Candle are different varieties of B. napus. And that B rapa is a=20
recognized *canola* variety.
> **** 1978: The term canola was trademarked****=20
> by the Western Canadian Oilseed Crushers=92 Association (now the Canadi=
an=20
> Oilseed Processors Association) to differentiate the superior low-
> erucic acid and low-glucosinolate varieties and their products from the=
=20
> older rapeseed varieties.
Here's what it says on the Canola Council of Canada site:=20
<http://www.canola-council.org/pubs/origin.html>
"In 1980, ownership of the canola trademark was transferred to the=20
Canola Council of Canada. Then on September 12, 1986, in response to a=20
request by the Canola Council, the trademark wording was amended by=20
the Trademarks Branch of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Canola is a Global Term
The statutory definition in Canada makes absolutely no mention of=20
Canada or Canadian. Canola has become a generic term =96 not just a=20
Canadian term =96 and is no longer an industry trademark."
See, Michel. Not a trademark now. 1978 was then; this is now. Canola=20
is generic.
> Canola is rapeseed. End of that discussion.
As if...
Pastorio
|
|
|
| Bob (this one) |
Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:10gnnnpg4e77icb@corp.supernews.com:
>
>>>>There were no groups making any demands. There was no pressure in
>>>>advance to alter the name from rape to something else.
>>>
>>>Yes there were. Did you miss that part?
>>
>>I wasn't clear in my statement. There was no outcry in the US.
>>Because it wasn't raised as an issue. It was a non-issue here in
>>the bigger market.
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear in mine either. I don't give a rat's ass how
> USAians feel about it.
>
>>>Uh uh. Rape was a term used in some form or other since Old
>>>English.
>>
>>>We're not talking about a new entry into the language or an
>>>exotic fruit.
>>
>>No. We're talking about a word with profoundly unpleasant
>>connotations.
>
> No we're talking about an imagined similarity. It's all in their
> minds.
Right. Imagined. Forget dictionaries and common usage. Of course it's
all in their minds. Just like all thoughts. Characterize it as you
will, English-speakers don't like the word. Impugn their intelligence
as you will. They don't like the word. Rape greens are almost always
called something else in English-speaking markets. You don't have to
like it. It's how it is. Why, exactly, you feel the need to speed from
zero to asshole as you've done is a bit puzzling.
Needless belligerence, Pointless anger. Malice. What a lovely package
you've forged.
>>As your Canadian brethren demonstrated in apparently
>>great detail. They didn't like how it felt to be saying it. They
>>didn't want to eat stuff called that. Simple.
>
> Ah, you assume that. I don't believe there was any direct
> association between marketing the product and the reaction to the
> term "rape" for brassica napus. You think there is. I don't think
> there is, or that there wasn't when the term canola was invented. It
> wasn't invented to circumvent public opinion, as I've have argued.
Yet you say there was pressure about it. Which is it? Can't have it
both ways. No pressure - pressure...
> You, on the other hand, merely assume it was and that the US had some
> profound impact on this process whereas I believe you are deeply in
> error on this point.
I didn't say the US had any impact at all. I was referring to
English-speakers. All English speakers. Any English-speakers.
> The term colza was already in use and could
> have been easily brought into play if that had been the case. It was
> not.
So it was all done so they could trademark a name that they willingly
gave away shortly thereafter. Nothing wrong with this picture, huh?
>>Note the distinctions between turnips and rape even though they're
>>both B. napus. They have the same biological names but are
>>obviously very different. It's patently silly to say, "Rutabaga is
>>Brassica napus, rape is Brassicus napus. Rutabaga is rape."
>>That's where your statement leads. Do fix the spelling.
>
> Well, seeing as we've already established that "rape" comes from
> rapus, the latin for turnip, I'd say you're the one assuming too
> much.
Michel, I really didn't think you were this slippery. I'm really
disappointed in your superficiality and evasions.
You trimmed the crux of that passage ever so smarmily to remove the
point of *your* citation that the council and the web site you offered
say there's a difference between rape and canola. It's one thing to
offer a quote in support. It's quite another to do this sort of shabby
dissembling.
>See, Michel. Not a trademark now. 1978 was then; this is now.
>>Canola is generic.
>
> I didn't say it wasn't
You said it was trademarked. YOu offered a quote that documented it.
But nothing about it's being surrendered a little later. You tried to
make it stand by not offering the whole story.
No mention of past. I said it isn't a trademark. Present tense.
> but admit it, you had no idea it had actually
> been trademarked at one time, whereas I did.
I had no idea that it was trademarked in the past. And if it had been
a good idea to do so, they would have continued it. They willingly
gave it up. I knew it wasn't a current trademark. So what?
The subject isn't about trademarks, it's about the identity of a
product derived from plants called canola and marketed as canola. You
say it isn't what the canola council says it is. Who to believe... a
conundrum. Right.
> At any rate, this could go around and around. I have made whatever
> points I felt were appropriate, and you are free to accept at face
> value or stuff it. I don't care either way.
We're done. Nice style you've developed. Pity.
Pastorio
|
|
|
| zxcvbob |
Bob (this one) wrote:
> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> Well, seeing as we've already established that "rape" comes from
>> rapus, the latin for turnip, I'd say you're the one assuming too much.
>
>
> Michel, I really didn't think you were this slippery. I'm really
> disappointed in your superficiality and evasions.
>
I don't think they coulda marketed it very well as Turnip OilŪ either.
(I really liked the "Bitch" dishwashing liquid and "Cock" mouthwash
examples, not that I'd buy the products)
Best regards,
Bob
|
|
|
| Bob (this one) |
Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:10gocl18d9hkid1@corp.supernews.com:
>
> You obviously need some sort of guidance, so here goes, and for the
> very last time. I don't care what more drivel you post, you won't
> get another peep out of me on this topic.
How often you say that...
>>>>I wasn't clear in my statement. There was no outcry in the US.
>>>>Because it wasn't raised as an issue. It was a non-issue here in
>>>>the bigger market.
>>>
>>>Perhaps I wasn't clear in mine either. I don't give a rat's ass
>>>how USAians feel about it.
>
> [...]
>
>>>No we're talking about an imagined similarity. It's all in their
>>>minds.
>>
>>Right. Imagined. Forget dictionaries and common usage. Of course
>>it's all in their minds.
>
> Oh, so you agree? :->
Too cute, Michel. As I already said, *all* thoughts are in their
minds. Just like yours.
>>Needless belligerence, Pointless anger. Malice. What a lovely
>>package you've forged.
>
> Actually, you're the belligerent one, but I doubt you can see that.
> We've been down this road before, Bob.
Sorry. You've been down the road and you've initiated it again. I
didn't get into this thread to fight with you. For whatever your
reasons, you felt the need to do your typical smarmy stuff. I truly
don't get you and your need to be combative when no combat is in the
offing.
>>>Ah, you assume that. I don't believe there was any direct
>>>association between marketing the product and the reaction to the
>>>term "rape" for brassica napus. You think there is. I don't
>>>think there is, or that there wasn't when the term canola was
>>>invented. It wasn't invented to circumvent public opinion, as
>>>I've have argued.
>>
>>Yet you say there was pressure about it. Which is it? Can't have
>>it both ways. No pressure - pressure...
>
> Ok, here it is. The debate occurred in 1971. The term canola was
> trademarked in 1978. Can you do the math? For 7 years, what became
> known as canola was still called rape. There was no reaction such as
> immediately renaming it canola. Those who were offended had probably
> forgotten about it by then.
Right. That's about the same time that "****" was forgotten, IIRC.
Words do that, you know. Happens all the time. As of this writing, 72%
of people have forgotten what "uvula" means.
> As I said, the name canola was not
> created to replace the term rape, it was created so that it could be
> trademarked. Can you not understand this?
But you said there was pressure form groups, and with your fanatical
anti-American posture, it means that it happened in Canada, likely
among English speakers, since there's no stigma attached to the word
in French. So there wasn't pressure? Part-time pressure, I bet. Just
days that ended in "-day."
You didn't say the "rape" protest started and then petered out <damn,
I'm funny>. You talked scornfully about protest groups.
>>>You, on the other hand, merely assume it was and that the US had
>>>some profound impact on this process whereas I believe you are
>>>deeply in error on this point.
>>
>>I didn't say the US had any impact at all. I was referring to
>>English-speakers. All English speakers. Any English-speakers.
>
> Actually, you didn't, true, but you implied that the US had an impact
> on the name change conundrum
Read what you wrote. Actually I didn't imply any such thing. I *did*
say that using the name "rape" in English-speaking markets would limit
sales because of the extremely strong negative connotations of the
word. You tried to make that into an insult about Americans when it's
a recognized situation in virtually all cultures.
> all the while claiming that it was not
> an issue there. Now who's cornfyoozed?
Well, you. And you're still trying to make it into something it isn't.
>>>The term colza was already in use and could
>>>have been easily brought into play if that had been the case. It
>>>was not.
>>
>>So it was all done so they could trademark a name that they
>>willingly gave away shortly thereafter. Nothing wrong with this
>>picture, huh?
>
> I was not party to the discussion, neither were you. The name change
> was not done so they could trademark a name, the name was trademarked
> in a separate movement (and I believe independent movement) from the
> debate.
So some people changed the name for no good reason? Or could it have
been that there was a new plant called "canola?" I mean, that's what
the canola council says, you know. Oh, wait. You posted that.
Then it was trademarked. But you said it was changed so it could be
trademarked. I think you need to sit down with a nice cup of tea and
compose your thoughts so you contradict yourself less. Just words from
a deeply concerned friend.
> You're still the one who thinks there's a connection.
You're the one who tried to connect them with your citations that you
didn't fully read. Remember them?
>>>Well, seeing as we've already established that "rape" comes from
>>>rapus, the latin for turnip, I'd say you're the one assuming too
>>>much.
>>
>>Michel, I really didn't think you were this slippery. I'm really
>>disappointed in your superficiality and evasions.
>
> Learn to live with disappointment.
Spoken like a true, um, er... [expletive deleted]
>>>See, Michel. Not a trademark now. 1978 was then; this is now.
>>>
>>>>Canola is generic.
>>>
>>>I didn't say it wasn't
>>
>>You said it was trademarked.
>
> And it was.
It *used to* be. You didn't seem to know that.
> You seemed to be unaware that it had been (as you
> admitted a bit further below).
I was unaware of what happened in 1978.
I am fully aware of its condition in 2004. You implied that it was
still under trademark. Naughty, naughty; when you don't offer full
disclosure, some people might question your honesty.
Just thought I'd clarify that for you
> is all.
Your beneficence is only outdone by your weaselyness.
> So what's your point? Nah...forget it, I'm not interested.
Oh, sure you are; some are about you. Several points. That canola
isn't trademarked. That there's a plant called canola. That the oil is
properly called canola, not rapeseed oil. That you're rather shabby at
this discourse process. That you let your frantic hatred distort your
perspective.
That's enough for now.
Pastorio
|
|
|
|
