Something Strange

[jean]

Some consumers of reborn dolls use them to replace a child they once lost, or a child that has grown up. Others collect reborns as they would regular dolls. These dolls are sometimes played-with as if they are an infant. Critics debate whether reborn dolls are harmful, or whether these dolls can help in the grieving process. Because of their realistic appearance, reborn dolls have occasionally been mistaken for real babies and "rescued" from parked cars after being reported to the police by passers-by.

[Tetrachord]

Actually that doesn't make Tetrachord's gender absolutely clear; I was recently introduced to one of my (male) student's husband.

I'm female.

[Flosshilde]

I think Jean thought you were. PG Tipps has a history of objection to same-sex marriage (or, at the least, to the use of the term 'marriage' in same-sex relationships), hence Jean's gentle dig at him when he referred to you as male, ignoring to your reference to your husband.

[jean]

Yes, that's correct...and for Mr Tipps the default position is masculinity, regardless of any clues that may have been given to the contrary.

I apologise to tetrachord for continuing the hijacking of her thread. Note that I did belatedly attempt to bring it back on track with my #76.

[ahinton]

Yes, that's correct...and for Mr Tipps the default position is masculinity, regardless of any clues that may have been given to the contrary.

I apologise to tetrachord for continuing the hijacking of her thread. Note that I did belatedly attempt to bring it back on track with my #76.

Tipping points can sometimes have a wearisome habit of manifesting themsleves here; I imagine that it would not likely occur to the member responsible to begin a business letter to an unknown individual other than with "Dear Sir".

The adoption of such a "default position" in a thread such as this one seems especially unseemly and inappropriate.

[Petrushka]

I imagine that it would not likely occur to the member responsible to begin a business letter to an unknown individual other than with "Dear Sir".

At the risk of prolonging the hijacking, it wouldn't occur to me either. This is correct usage, though Dear Sirs is used for addressing a company collectively. Dear Sir/Madam is also correct and gets you out of jail free but my default is still Dear Sir if I don't know either way. Perhaps it's one for Pedant's Corner.

[ahinton]

At the risk of prolonging the hijacking, it wouldn't occur to me either. This is correct usage, though Dear Sirs is used for addressing a company collectively. Dear Sir/Madam is also correct and gets you out of jail free but my default is still Dear Sir if I don't know either way. Perhaps it's one for Pedant's Corner.

Perhaps so - if you say so - but the principle (or rather the reasoning) behind what I wrote was clearly (or so I'd hoped) based on the notion of an illustration of that default positioning which has been mentioned (not by me) earlier in this thread; "Dear Sirs" cannot be correct in practice unless one knows in advance, as the writer of such a letter, that one is addressing males only and the get-out when writing to people in a corporate situation whose names and genders one doesn't and cannot necessarily be expected to know in advance is surely "To whom it may concern"?...

[P. G. Tipps]

Of course only a tiny few would ever believe any of this letter stuff is hugely important or has any relevance whatsoever to the subject of the thread. Some of the more recent contributions (apparently about myself) did make me smile broadly, though, and certainly could be be classed as Something Strange ... something very, very strange indeed.

Again apologies to the OP for typing 'his' instead of 'her', your gender was the last thing on my mind and even I had little idea that such a simple mistake could provoke such a bizarre reaction on a forum intended for mature adults. Roslynmuse and Petrushka have both pointed out some simple facts in their contributions which have been either discounted by those responsible or ignored completely, but at least there can be no criticism here on the grounds of consistency.

I thank the OP for her story which was very strange indeed and my reaction would have been very much the same as her's and her husband's. I cannot see how anyone could not be unsettled by their extremely peculiar and rare encounter and not think it was somewhat 'creepy'.. Theirs was a perfectly natural and, dare I say, 'normal' response. Yet as the very concept of normal/anbormal (sic) is apparently anathema to some (#51), it is clearly quite pointless going any further in the discussion?

[ahinton]

Of course only a tiny few would ever believe any of this letter stuff is hugely important or has any relevance whatsoever to the subject of the thread.

It may not do so in itself; however, you miss the point here in that it is not only wrong (or at the very least unwise) to the ignore the question of the gender of someone to whom you are writing, responding, referring to or otherwise - it also reveals a lack of care and concern for such matters, as though (to you) they're of no possible importance, regardless of circumstance.

Some of the more recent contributions (apparently about myself) did make me smile broadly, though, and certainly could be be classed as Something Strange ... something very, very strange indeed.

I can see why your smiling to yourself in those circumstances "certainly could be be classed as Something Strange", but that's a matter for you alone.

Again apologies to the OP for typing 'his' instead of 'her', your gender was the last thing on my mind and even I had little idea that such a simple mistake could provoke such a bizarre reaction on a forum intended for mature adults.

I think that most if not all of us here can accept that you made a mistake (we all make them de temps en temps) and that you're owning up to having done so but, once again, that's not the point, as I've endeavoured to explain above (something which I would not have expected there to be any need to do "on a forum intended for mature adults").

at least there can be no criticism here on the grounds of consistency.

I can't (and therefore don't) disagree with that; your particular brand of "consistency" is as well known as it is dependable!

I thank the OP for her story which was very strange indeed and my reaction would have been very much the same as her's and her husband's. I cannot see how anyone could not be unsettled by their extremely peculiar and rare encounter and not think it was somewhat 'creepy'.. Theirs was a perfectly natural and, dare I say, 'normal' response. Yet as the very concept of normal/anbormal (sic) is apparently anathema to some (#51), it is clearly quite pointless going any further in the discussion?

Pointless for you, perhaps, but please bear in mind that you are not the only participant in the discussion. Your remark here appears both wilfully and insensitively to ignore (or fail to understand) (a) much of what's been said about the kinds of circumstances that might give rise to the conduct described and (b) the fact that what might seem "normal" to one person is not necessarily - nor can it be expected to be - "normal" to others, subject to understanding of the circousmancs involved; some people listen to Bach, some to Merzbow, some to Ornette Coleman, some to Xenakis, some to Buxtehude, some to Ferneyhough, but those facts do not and indeed cannot preclude the possibility that some might listen to more than one or even all of these.

[P. G. Tipps]

It may not do so in itself; however, you miss the point here in that it is not only wrong (or at the very least unwise) to the ignore the question of the gender of someone to whom you are writing, responding, referring to or otherwise - it also reveals a lack of care and concern for such matters, as though (to you) they're of no possible importance, regardless of circumstance.


I can see why your smiling to yourself in those circumstances "certainly could be be classed as Something Strange", but that's a matter for you alone.


I think that most if not all of us here can accept that you made a mistake (we all make them de temps en temps) and that you're owning up to having done so but, once again, that's not the point, as I've endeavoured to explain above (something which I would not have expected there to be any need to do "on a forum intended for mature adults").


I can't (and therefore don't) disagree with that; your particular brand of "consistency" is as well known as it is dependable!


Pointless for you, perhaps, but please bear in mind that you are not the only participant in the discussion. Your remark here appears both wilfully and insensitively to ignore (or fail to understand) (a) much of what's been said about the kinds of circumstances that might give rise to the conduct described and (b) the fact that what might seem "normal" to one person is not necessarily - nor can it be expected to be - "normal" to others, subject to understanding of the circousmancs involved; some people listen to Bach, some to Merzbow, some to Ornette Coleman, some to Xenakis, some to Buxtehude, some to Ferneyhough, but those facts do not and indeed cannot preclude the possibility that some might listen to more than one or even all of these.

My dear ahinton, what gives rise to any 'abnormality' doesn't in any way lessen the fact that it is, by dictionary definition, 'not considered to be the norm'. If that were not the case the OP would never have started the thread in the first place! Her experience was clearly not one she had ever encountered before.

There can be all sorts of reasons for unusual human behaviour and the OP herself did expand on that in relation to her own case. She described her and her husband's reactions and wondered if others had similar experiences. That's all.

None of this is anybody's fault. No, not even mine. It's simply meant to be a discussion about (or supposed to be) what people find extremely peculiar and strange ... honestly!

[ahinton]

My dear ahinton, what gives rise to any 'abnormality' doesn't in any way lessen the fact that it is, by dictionary definition, 'not considered to be the norm'. If that were not the case the OP would never have started the thread in the first place! Her experience was clearly not one she had ever encountered before.

There can be all sorts of reasons for unusual human behaviour and the OP herself did expand on that in relation to her own case. She described her and her husband's reactions and wondered if others had similar experiences. That's all.

None of this is anybody's fault. No, not even mine. It's simply meant to be a discussion about (or supposed to be) what people find extremely peculiar and strange ... honestly!

What your responses appear to have failed to distinguish between is the "normality" or otherwise of the conduct and that of the circumstances that may have given rise to it.

[Flosshilde]

My dear ahinton, what gives rise to any 'abnormality' doesn't in any way lessen the fact that it is, by dictionary definition, 'not considered to be the norm'.

I'm afraid your reliance on dictionary definitions (some of which are very dubious, btw - I note you don't reference the particular dictionary you draw them from) has let you down again. There is a world of difference between 'norm' and 'normal'. It is normal to be homosexual, for example, but it might not be 'the norm' in the sense that everyone, or the majority of people,
is.

[jean]

It's also worth pointing out that abnormal isn't an exact synonym for strange, the word chosen by the OP.

[ahinton]

It's also worth pointing out that abnormal isn't an exact synonym for strange, the word chosen by the OP.

Quite; imagine if Scriabin had entitled the second of his Op. 63 Poèmes for piano Abnormalité rather than Étrangeté as he did! - something of an eyebrow raiser for his publishers, one may imagine...

[ahinton]

I'm afraid your reliance on dictionary definitions (some of which are very dubious, btw - I note you don't reference the particular dictionary you draw them from) has let you down again. There is a world of difference between 'norm' and 'normal'. It is normal to be homosexual, for example, but it might not be 'the norm' in the sense that everyone, or the majority of people, is.

Exactly; only around 1,500 people in the world are Scots so, whilst being one of them is clearly not the "norm", it's not "abnormal" per se...