snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Urban Legends » Trivia » New myths that need disproving.

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: New myths that need disproving.
luem42
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 99 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I recently received an email with several "fun facts". I know some of them are true but some of them don't seem correct. I have already disproved one, Every day more money is printed for Monopoly than the US Treasury. (50 billion dollars worth of MONOPOLY money in one year http://www.monopoly.com/pl/page.funfacts/dn/default.cfm . The BEP produces approximately 37 million currency notes each day, 13.5 billion notes a year, with a face value of about $696 million a day, totaling $254 billion dollars a year. http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/production.html#q1 ). I could use help disproving the others. they can be found on several web pages including this one http://www.effingpot.com/fun/oddfacts.html .
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
This particular list had a lower than usual ratio of falsehoods to truth...

"Percentage of Africa that is wilderness: 28
Percentage of North America that is wilderness: 38"

Are they excluding deserts from the definition of wilderness? If I build a cabin in how great a distance around it is "not wilderness" any more?

"Barbie's measurements if she were life size: 39-23-33"

You'd have to estimate that as plus or minus an inch, because you don't know how tall she would be.

"Only bird that can fly backwards: Hummingbird"

Well, yes and no... Other small birds can fly backwards for very brief distances. But, yes, hummingbirds are the only ones who can do it for a sustained period.

"Eskimos never gamble."

Wanna bet?

"Hot water is heavier than cold."

Nope. Cold water is denser than hot, except at temperatures very close to freezing. Mix cold and hot water, and, before the temperatures even out, the cold water will sink, while the hot water will remain closer to the surface.

(I suppose that the intent of the claim is that hot water consists of molecules that moving faster than the molecules in cold water, and thus that they have slightly greater relativistic mass.)

Silas

--------------------
When on music's mighty pinion, souls of men to heaven rise,
Then both vanish earth's dominion, man is native to the skies.

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
"Eskimos never gamble"

Why is it that with all the political correctness going around, nobody bothers to learn that these people are the Inuits. Eskimo is derogatory in the same way that Indian is to Native Americans.

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Colonist of the North
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I swear I heard somewhere that Eskimo translates loosly as "Children-eater". Then again might be a UL.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BeachLife:
"Eskimos never gamble"

Why is it that with all the political correctness going around, nobody bothers to learn that these people are the Inuits. Eskimo is derogatory in the same way that Indian is to Native Americans.

"Indian" is actually acceptable to most Native Americans. They *prefer* the use of the proper tribal name -- Sioux, Hopi, Navajo, etc. -- but they cope with the need for an enveloping term.

"Inuit" only applies to a limited range of people. Eskimo, as unfortunate as it may be in origin, applies to the entire range of tribes.

Using "Inuit" as the generic term would be as infelicitous as using "Hopi" as the generic term for all native North Americans.

The prevailing lingo has a tendency to provide a moving target. Negro...Colored...Black...African-American... etc.

Silas (Californian-American) Sparkhammer

--------------------
When on music's mighty pinion, souls of men to heaven rise,
Then both vanish earth's dominion, man is native to the skies.

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Baikal
Happy Holly Days


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Baikal   E-mail Baikal   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
We should also put in a word here about debunking the prolific idea that 'Eskimo' is a word meaning 'eaters of raw flesh' (the most common one) or 'children-eater.'

As far as I can tell nobody knows how it got started, but today it's almost a standard explanation that 'Eskimo' is a bad word because of a derogatory connotation. Not so. The correct translation, according to the prevailing theory, is that it means something like 'snowshoe netter.'

Therefore people have convinced themselves that they should call them 'Inuit,' although this is somewhat akin to insisting that 'Asians' be referred to as 'Chinese' or 'Blacks' as 'Zulus'--as Silas noted, 'Inuit' does not refer to Eskimos as a whole, and I suspect that very few people would know what 'Inupiaq' and 'Yupik' (which refer to northern indigenous peoples who don't speak the Inuit language) mean and even fewer would know which terms applied to which groups. 'Eskimo' is and remains the only all-inclusive term.

Nonetheless, this has to be one of the most prevalent urban legends I've seen, and with the exception of dictionaries that trace etymology and (thank God) the Straight Dope, virtually everyone repeats this myth as gospel. The best guess is that, in an attempt to be politically correct, people use what they think is a more acceptable term but which is, in reality, one that doesn't strictly apply to, for instance, the people of Alaska or Siberia.

Edit:

I suppose I should speak more carefully. What I mean to say is this: the notion that 'Eskimo' translates to 'eaters of raw meat' has fallen out of favour in linguistic circles but remains popular among the laypeople, many of whom justify their use of the noninclusive term 'Inuit' through the older, rejected etymology. Cecil Adams says that the theory that it comes from 'eaters of raw meat' has been discounted and every single dictionary I looked at sides with him. I consider the debate to be reasonably settled, although that's not to say that everyone accepts the prevailing scientific view.

However, it's also worth noting that Eskimo was never intended as a pejorative and does not have that connotation in English. Telling people that they are wrong for using 'Eskimo,' as I have seen many do, is incorrect. The particular tribe or branch would be preferable, of course, but when it is not known 'Inuit' is not the term one should use. Further the arrogant declaration made by a great number of websites that the Eskimos 'call themselves Inuit'--or that it is the preferred term by the Eskimos themselves--is, depending on case, is potentially false and certainly misleading.

-Baikal

--------------------
I'm just a typical American boy from a typical American town.

Posts: 1463 | From: CU, Boulder Campus | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Colonist of the North
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I knew Eskimo meant something Eater of something (heard children but it's raw flesh)

here is the link
Eskimo means eater of raw flesh

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Drag, the Magic Puffin
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 208 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmm...conflicting cites...
Here's what dictionary.com has to say:
quote:
The claim that Eskimo is offensive is based primarily on a popular but disputed etymology tracing its origin to an Abenaki word meaning “eaters of raw meat.” Though modern
linguists speculate that the term actually derives from a Montagnais word referring to the manner of lacing a snowshoe, the matter remains undecided, and meanwhile many English speakers have learned to
perceive Eskimo as a derogatory term invented by unfriendly outsiders in scornful reference to their neighbors' unsophisticated eating habits.

ETA: More to the point of the original post, it's worth mentioning that a lot of these trivia lists come to the attention of the board fairly frequently. Luem, check out here and here.

Drag, the "Snow? What's that? I'm from SE Texas!!" Magic Puffin

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dewey
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for dewey   E-mail dewey   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baikal:
Nonetheless, this has to be one of the most prevalent urban legends I've seen, and with the exception of dictionaries that trace etymology and (thank God) the Straight Dope, virtually everyone repeats this myth as gospel. The best guess is that, in an attempt to be politically correct, people use what they think is a more acceptable term but which is, in reality, one that doesn't strictly apply to, for instance, the people of Alaska or Siberia.

Edit:

I suppose I should speak more carefully. What I mean to say is this: the notion that 'Eskimo' translates to 'eaters of raw meat' has fallen out of favour in linguistic circles but remains popular among the laypeople, many of whom justify their use of the noninclusive term 'Inuit' through the older, rejected etymology. Cecil Adams says that the theory that it comes from 'eaters of raw meat' has been discounted and every single dictionary I looked at sides with him. I consider the debate to be reasonably settled, although that's not to say that everyone accepts the prevailing scientific view.

-Baikal

Baikal,

A quick check of Dictionary.com has one entry that agrees with you and two that don't. While I tend to trust the American Heritage Dictionary the most I do think that it is not a case of all dictionaries being in agreement as to the etymology.

dewey

Posts: 2413 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
resELution
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for resELution   E-mail resELution   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hell, I eat Sashimi(sp?), does that make me an Eskimo? [Confused]

Perhaps Eskimo ment "eater of raw flesh" or "eater of children" and maybe still means that to some people now, but it is hardly the general understanding of the term. If it ever did mean that do the general public, it must be a rather antiquated term.

I'd say insisting they be called Inuit would be the same as instisting that all Canadians, US citizens and Aussies be called English. Or that Mexicans be called Spanish for that matter. [Roll Eyes]

Colonist of the North, the link you posted mentions Native Americans as Indians. I'd question their reliability. Chances are you were right in your first post, it is a UL.

Also, we should all remember that ULs aren't necessarily untrue, but sometimes are exaggerated or misunderstood truths. Perhaps, as I said before, it did mean something degrading at some time, but was that it's literal translation?

Posts: 2286 | From: Washington State | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by resErun with the sunLution:
Hell, I eat Sashimi(sp?), does that make me an Eskimo? [Confused]

Perhaps Eskimo ment "eater of raw flesh" or "eater of children" and maybe still means that to some people now, but it is hardly the general understanding of the term. If it ever did mean that do the general public, it must be a rather antiquated term.

I'd say insisting they be called Inuit would be the same as instisting that all Canadians, US citizens and Aussies be called English. Or that Mexicans be called Spanish for that matter. [Roll Eyes]

Colonist of the North, the link you posted mentions Native Americans as Indians. I'd question their reliability. Chances are you were right in your first post, it is a UL.

Also, we should all remember that ULs aren't necessarily untrue, but sometimes are exaggerated or misunderstood truths. Perhaps, as I said before, it did mean something degrading at some time, but was that it's literal translation?

Okay dredge up dictionary.com and what ever you want. My post was based on what was told to me by, *gasp*, Inuits.

Beach...you're really an Eskimo because dictiionary.com says so, and therefor you can't be offended...Life!

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Baikal
Happy Holly Days


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Baikal   E-mail Baikal   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dewey:
A quick check of Dictionary.com has one entry that agrees with you and two that don't. While I tend to trust the American Heritage Dictionary the most I do think that it is not a case of all dictionaries being in agreement as to the etymology.

Ah. The usage note for 'Eskimo' supports what I said, and I didn't look much further than that. I stand corrected.

We've got five dictionaries at home, three of which contain etymological references. Webster's Third International holds to the Algonquin origin; Webster's New College Dictionary uses the Montagnais explanation. The OED is mum on the subject, perhaps not wishing to be controversial. The New College dictionary post-dates the Third International by several decades, which jibes with what I've said: in recent years, the Algonquin origin has fallen out of favour, and with it the supposedly derogatory meaning of 'Eskimo.'

Anyway I jaunted off to the library an hour ago, thinking that this would be a simple enough task. Of course it isn't. There are a number of dictionaries there. The most complete one, the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, calls the Algonquinian etymology 'erroneous'; the American Heritage dictionary hedges its bets and sides with a 'the preferred modern explanation is Montagnais but it's still in dispute' sort of thing.

Interestingly, Spirits of the Snow, a compilation of northern myth, refutes the 'Eskimo = eaters of raw meat' argument and uses 'Eskimo' instead of Inuit because Inuit is not an encompassing term.

quote:
Originally posted by BeachLife
My post was based on what was told to me by, *gasp*, Inuits.

So what? One of my friends is a black guy who won't drink Snapple because he swears up and down that it's owned by the KKK. That doesn't make him right, even if he is black. It also doesn't really give him the right to demand that I not drink Snapple based on an incorrect belief about the product. Further, suppose he's from Philadelphia--should be try to convince me that all black people should be called 'Philadelphians'?

A decision by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference said that 'Inuit' was the preferred term. That does not and will not make non-Inuit peoples Inuit, regardless of how enlightened people think they are by calling them so. A substantial minority in Canada is not Inuit; they're not as prevalent in Alaska, and as far as I can tell there aren't any Inuit at all on the other side of the Bering Strait.

Incidentally, I don't believe I said that the word wasn't offensive. It's always preferrable to use the actual term when referring to the person (in many cases, 'Inuit' is correct--in others, it's not. Similarly we would prefer to say 'Korean' instead of simply 'Asian.' All Koreans are Asians; not all Asians are Koreans). I said that the etymology that everybody 'knows' is not, in fact, correct. People can choose to be offended by any damn fool thing they like.

-Baikal

--------------------
I'm just a typical American boy from a typical American town.

Posts: 1463 | From: CU, Boulder Campus | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, let's start over then.

My experience is with Inuits who find the term Eskimos to be derogatory. From my understanding Eskimo is not the prefered term by any of the sub-groups.

As with Native American tribes, the tribal name might work better. In Alaska, the tribes collectively are called 'Natives'. Regardless, dicionary.com is not the definitive answer.

Though I inadvertanly implied such, my point has never been that non-Inuits should be called Inuits. Instead, my point is that natives often find the term Eskimo to be derogatory.

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Bonnie
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 82 posted      Profile for Bonnie   E-mail Bonnie       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The OED is mum on the subject, perhaps not wishing to be controversial.
Hmm, perhaps the edition I've been looking at is just too old, then: the current online edition gives the etymology cited by the second edition (1989), which also goes along with "raw-flesh eaters" (i.e., "Eskimo" derives from Danish, from the French "Esquimaux" [plural], which stems from "some Algonquain Indian language," with an origin in the Proto-Algonquin Abnaki "askimo" [pl. "askimoak"], "eaters of raw flesh"). Perhaps a later edition omits this presumed etymology for "Eskimo."

quote:
The correct translation, according to the prevailing theory, is that it means something like 'snowshoe netter.'
It's worth mentioning, then, that AUE documents Ives Goddard's "snowshoe netter" theory in its FAQ. (What I find a bit odd, though, is that while Goddard offered that up 20 years ago, it's a little difficult to find things published by linguists [outside of dictionaries, perhaps] that embrace this alternate etymology. Perhaps I'm simply not looking hard enough.)

It bears pointing out, though, that there's a "speaking a foreign language" theory, too. Chris Miller contributed the following to a Linguist List discussion several years ago,

quote:
The term "Eskimo" itself derives most likely from a word in several Algonquian languages and most likely from the Cree-Atihkamekw-Montagnais-Naskapi dialect continuum, meaning "speaking a foreign language". The commonly assumed meaning, "eaters of raw meat" appears to have no basis when these languages are examined. The probable etymology of the term is in proto-Algonquian *aya(ch)- "other" + *axkyi "land" + *me: "by mouth" + animate suffix *-w: "other-land-speaker" (approximately). The term appears in Plains Cree as "ayaskime:w", in Eastern James Bay Cree as "i:scima:w", in Montagnais as "aiassime:u" ("aiashcime:u" in the 17th century), and in Micmac as "esgimow". In most of these languages, the term was applied to those we know as Eskimos, but the Montagnais apparently used it to refer to the Micmacs. A different term meaning "raw- eaters" was applied to the Eskimos by speakers of the Ojibwa dialect continuum: "eshkibod" among the Ojibwa proper and "ashkipok" (spelt "ackipok") by the Algonquins farther east.
In any event, as we've touched on earlier, it appears that -- in the absence of unanimity amongst linguists -- we can't yet entirely discount "eaters of raw meat" (with or without derogatory connotation) as a possible derivation.

In a related vein, let's not forget that there's a body of literature -- accurate or otherwise -- holding that quite a few other recognized North American "tribal" names derive from sometimes less-than-flattering descriptors given by neighboring peoples and tribal foes. For example,

quote:
Many errors resulted also from haphazard methods of collecting tribal designations. When an explorer visited a tribe, he always asked for the names of the people with whom the tribe was acquainted. In consequence, dozens of tribes are known by the names which their neighbors applied to them. And in many of these instances these neighbors were also their enemies. Certain if a visitor had asked us in 1918 for the name of the Germans we would have answered Huns. Likewise, Mohawk, "men eaters," is from the Narraganset appellation for this Iroquoian tribe. The Iroquois, as has been mentioned, are known to history by their Algonkian name, which means "real adders," hence "enemies;" so also the Sioux, whose name is a French-Canadian abbreviation of Nadoweisiw, "an adder," from the Chippewa, another Algonkian group. Sarsi is from the Blackfoot epithet for this tribe, sa arsi, "not good." Probably the best known of such baptism by enemies is Eskimo, said to be derived from the Abnaki Esquimantsic, or from Ashkimeq, the Chippewa equivalent, signifying "eaters of raw flesh" ... [From M.G. Smith, "American Indian Tribal Names," American Speech 5(2): 114-117, December, 1929.]
Finally, getting back to spurious word-origins for a moment, no discussion of the derivation of "Eskimo" would be complete without blaming the Jesuits for the naming of these native people,

quote:
A Note on the Derivation of the Word "Eskimo" (Inuit)
American Anthropologist [n.s.] 52(4/1): 564 (October/December, 1950).

The usual etymology given for the word Eskimo [French esquimau(x)], whereby it is derived from Algonkin Indian language aske "raw meat," and moho "to eat," is probably wrong. Originally the form of the name, as found in the Jesuit Relations, was Excomminquois or Excomminqui. Escoumins is the name of a village in the interior of the country on the north side of St. Lawrence Gulf. The name Excomminqui was first used by the French Jesuits who, in 1605, began missionary work particularly among the Algonkin Indians, their friendly allies. These Indians often had encounters with the coastal tribes of Labrador, wild seal hunters who for a long time remained hostile to the Jesuits and their Indian friends. The missionaries invented the name Excomminquois (pronounced Excomminqué) for their pagan neighbors to the north-east, and this name was later, by degrees, altered to Escoumains and Esquimaux. The original meaning of the name is probably connected with the fact that the hostile pagans were interdicted from the church and the sacrament: Latin excommunicati. Therefore the etymology of Eskimo is not "eaters of raw meat," but "the excommunicated ones." The Eskimos do not know that word or name, but call themselves Inuit, from the singular of the noun inuk, "man" –- that is, a human being who speaks an intelligible language such as their own.

WILLIAM THALBITZER
Copenhagen, Denmark

Relations des Jésuites ... de la Nouvelle France, les années 1611 à 1672, ed. 1858, Vol. 1, pp. 7-9.



--------------------
Se non è vero, è ben trovato.

Posts: -99014 | From: Chapel Hill, North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Amateur Sleuth
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't remember where, so I can't cite or link this, but I remember reading somewhere that the early Indians/Native Americans called all non-Indian/Native Americans "white."

More likely, this meant they used the same word for any one who wasn't Indian/Native American, so a more accurate translation would have been "stranger" or "foreigner."

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
the Virgin Marrya
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 202 posted      Profile for the Virgin Marrya     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
weeeellll...the local (Maori) word for 'white-man' in common usage pakeha originally meant long pig (slang for tastes like pork, but in bigger pieces).
But we all still use it fairly interchangably with caucsian or NZeuropean.

--------------------
Windows cannot open this file. To open this file correctly, defenestrate, then try running the file again...

Posts: 5383 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Amateur Sleuth
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marry-me-a vuoold-ya:
weeeellll...the local (Maori) word for 'white-man' in common usage pakeha originally meant long pig (slang for tastes like pork, but in bigger pieces).
But we all still use it fairly interchangably with caucsian or NZeuropean.

I guess I didn't make it clear that what I read assumed American Indians called all non-Indians -- including blacks -- "white." This is why I think "foreigner" would be more accurate.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Raven Waift
The First USA Noel


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Raven Waift   Author's Homepage   E-mail Raven Waift   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Coca-Cola was originally green.Yay, for snopes, here (http://snopes.com/cokelore/green.asp).

Smartest dogs: 1)border collie; 2)poodle; 3)golden retriever
Dumbest: afghan Both true.
See here (http://www.petrix.com/dogint/intelligence.html) this explains where this comes from.

Hawaiian alphabet has 12 letters. True. See here (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_alphabet).

Number of different familial relationships for which Hallmark makes cards:105 I saw many less than that, Aunt, Uncle, Brother, Dad, Daughter, Granddaughter, Grandson, Grandma, Grandpa, Mom, Niece, Nephew, Sister, Son, Stepparent. I don't see how this can be 105 relationships.

Only president to win a Pulitzer: John F. Kennedy, for "Profiles in Courage" True (http://www.govspot.com/know/pulitzer.htm)

Only president awarded a patent: Abe Lincoln, for a system of buoying vessels over shoals True (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blkidprimer6_12pres.htm)

Only food that does not spoil: honey Honey don't spoil, look (http://www.suebee.com/honeyfacts.html#7). Sugar does spoil, and I can't think of any food that wouldn't, except honey.

Only person to win $64,000 Challenge and $64,000 Question: Dr. Joyce Brothers (subject is boxing) True, lookie here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/quizshow/peopleevents/pande03.html).

Only continent without reptiles or snakes: Antarctica Nope, they are not there. I promise. [Big Grin]

Only animal besides human that can get sunburn: Pig Pigs do get sunburns, but I do not know about no other animal getting them.

Ostriches stick their heads in the sand to look for water. No no no no no no no no no. I am not looking up a site for this. I refuse.

An eagle can kill a young deer and fly away with it. Snopes has something similar to this here (http://www.snopes.com/critters/mishaps/dognap.htm). As you can see, this would have to be a small deer, at birth weigth they are about 7-10 lbs. (http://www.ava.com.au/content/avj/mar97/199.htm) But these may not be the smallest. It is highly doubtful they could make off with something that heavy.

In the Caribbean there are oysters that can climb trees. Another where all searches come up with lists.

Polar bears are left-handed. False, yet again. Here is a site (http://www.polarbearsalive.org/facts11.php).

Intelligent people have more zinc and copper in their hair. Couldn't find anything on this except for lists like this, and one "blonds aren't stupid" websites. And they didn't say anything except that was a stupid myth. Since I can't find anything on this, I am assuming it is untrue. Up for you to decide.

The world's youngest parents were 8 and 9 and lived in China in 1910. How do you define youngest couple? This site (http://www.sexualrecords.com/WSRlove.html)
quote:
Fatma Sultan, daughter of Sultan Ibrahim (r. 1640-1646), became the wife of the second vizier Yusuf Pasa when she was three years old (child marriages were not uncommon in the Ottoman empire during this period). A year later, the vizier was killed on the Sultan's orders, making Fatma a widow at the age of four. That very same year, she married again, this time to Admiral Fazil Pasa. After the lavish wedding but before their union was consummated, her husband was sent to a mission abroad, never to return. Twelve years later Fazil Pasa died, making her a second-time widow at the age of sixteen. Fatma wisely decided never to marry again.
I guess it does kind of depend on what you are looking for. Many couples were betrothed, some before they were born.

The youngest pope was 11 years old. False. It seems that he was about 20 (they didn't exactly keep detailed birth records when he was born) I suppose you'd like a site, so here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm).

Mark Twain didn't graduate from elementary school. The encarta article on Mark Twain (http://beta.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761555419) states only that he recieved a public school education. That seems to mean that he completed it.

Pilgrims ate popcorn at the first Thanksgiving dinner. Snopes decide to weigh in on Thanksgiving here (http://snopes.com/holidays/thanksgiving/thanksgiving.htm). Note that it says that corn on the cob probably wasn't there, so I would doubt popcorn would be. Although here (http://okok.essortment.com/whatisthehist_rsdt.htm) it says that popcorn was at the first Thanksgiving. Goodness, I hate trying to wade through the Net. This (http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/PopcornHistory.htm) site says that
quote:
Some historians suggest, but this theory has never been proved, that when the early English colonists held their first Thanksgiving celebration on October 15, 1621, an Indian named Quadequina brought an offering for the feast - a great deerskin bag of popped corn.
Iguess you'll have to decide for yourself, or find a better source.

Jupiter is bigger than all the other planets combined. According to encarta, Jupiter has a mass of 1.90×1027 kg. The mass of the other planets are as follows.
Mercury: 3.3 x 10^23 kg 33
Venus: 4.87 x 10^24 kg 487
Earth: 5.97 x 10^24 kg 597
Mars: 6.42 x 10^23 kg 64.2
Saturn: 5.69 x 10^26 kg 56900
Uranus: 8.68 x 10^25 kg 8680
Neptune: 1.02 x 10^26 kg 10200
Pluto: 1.40 x 10^22 kg 1.4
The other 8 planets have a total mass of 7.6962 x 10^26 (unless I forgot how to add again), so it is true.

The parachute was invented by da Vinci in 1515. I believe this (http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi44.htm) site answers that question.

They have square watermelons in Japan...they stack better. Yes they have square watermelons, but they aren't cost effective (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/15/square.watermelon/index.html) More of a novelty item.

Starfish have eight eyes--one at the end of each leg. This site (http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/reflib/cot-starfish/pages/cot-000.html) says
quote:
Yes, but not eyes as most animals have. Starfish have eyespots at the tip of each arm, which act as light sensors. They contain a red pigment which changes chemically in the presence of light and are thought to influence the starfish's behaviour (particularly movement).
Iceland consumes more Coca-Cola per capita than any other nation. This (http://www.rotary3450.org/hongkong-south/mtg20010816/) site says that Mexico drinks the most per person. Doing searches only comes up with more lists.

It is possible to lead a cow upstairs but not downstairs. I have seen this everywhere, but can find no confirmation or denial.

Armadillos can be housetrained. I am sure they can be. Most animals can be housetrained. It's a matter of weither or not you'd really like to do it.

--------------------
Whereas as you are dancing happily in the fields of ignorance through which the stream of stupidity bubbles and flows. -BlushingBride
My my space.

Posts: 656 | From: Ohio | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Tootsie Plunkette
Buy a Torch, Jeanette, Isabella


Icon 303 posted      Profile for Tootsie Plunkette   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raven Waift:
Number of different familial relationships for which Hallmark makes cards:105
I saw many less than that, Aunt, Uncle, Brother, Dad, Daughter, Granddaughter, Grandson, Grandma, Grandpa, Mom, Niece, Nephew, Sister, Son, Stepparent. I don't see how this can be 105 relationships.

I know I've seen Stepfather, Stepmother, Stepson, Stepdaughter, Cousin, Mother-in-Law, Father-in-Law, Sister-in-Law, Brother-in-Law, Godmother, Godfather, "Like a Father," "Like a Mother," Baby, Secret Pal, Petsitter, Teacher, Minister, Boss, Secretary, Co-Worker, Best Friend. OK, most of those are not exactly "familial." But that's also still not close to 105.

--------------------
--Tootsie

Posts: 5017 | From: Greater Seattle | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ace_of_Sevens
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
"Barbie's measurements if she were life size: 39-23-33"

You'd have to estimate that as plus or minus an inch, because you don't know how tall she would be.

Since Barbie's clothes are proportionately thicker than a human's, particularly at the seams, she needs to be made thinner naked to appear normal when clothed.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
WonkoTheSane
Happy Holly Days


Icon 01 posted      Profile for WonkoTheSane     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raven Waift:
The world's youngest parents were 8 and 9 and lived in China in 1910. How do you define youngest couple? This site (http://www.sexualrecords.com/WSRlove.html)
quote:
Fatma Sultan, daughter of Sultan Ibrahim (r. 1640-1646), became the wife of the second vizier Yusuf Pasa when she was three years old (child marriages were not uncommon in the Ottoman empire during this period). A year later, the vizier was killed on the Sultan's orders, making Fatma a widow at the age of four. That very same year, she married again, this time to Admiral Fazil Pasa. After the lavish wedding but before their union was consummated, her husband was sent to a mission abroad, never to return. Twelve years later Fazil Pasa died, making her a second-time widow at the age of sixteen. Fatma wisely decided never to marry again.
I guess it does kind of depend on what you are looking for. Many couples were betrothed, some before they were born.
If I'm not mistaken, the 'fact' does not state who the youngest COUPLE was, but who the youngest PARENTS were. Much, much different.


quote:
"Barbie's measurements if she were life size: 39-23-33"

You'd have to estimate that as plus or minus an inch, because you don't know how tall she would be.

Also, on the Barbie measurement thing... it seems to me that a woman's measurements really have nothing to do with her height. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but 39-23-33 would apply just as readily to a 5'1" as to a 6' woman, it would just be a matter of proportion. In fact, I don't see how they could even come UP with a set of measurements like that without deciding on what height she would be ahead of time. They would have no frame of reference. Seems that whoever came up with this "fact" wanted to exploit the common (and true) feeling that Barbie is an unrealistic model.

--------------------
"It seemed to me that any civilization that had so far lost its head as to need to include detailed instructions for use in a package of toothpicks, was no longer a civilzation in which I could live and stay sane."

Posts: 1462 | From: Outside the Asylum (Massachusetts) | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 01 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Insignificant_Opinion:

quote:
"Barbie's measurements if she were life size: 39-23-33"

You'd have to estimate that as plus or minus an inch, because you don't know how tall she would be.

Also, on the Barbie measurement thing... it seems to me that a woman's measurements really have nothing to do with her height. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but 39-23-33 would apply just as readily to a 5'1" as to a 6' woman, it would just be a matter of proportion. In fact, I don't see how they could even come UP with a set of measurements like that without deciding on what height she would be ahead of time. They would have no frame of reference. Seems that whoever came up with this "fact" wanted to exploit the common (and true) feeling that Barbie is an unrealistic model.
The height is relavent, not to a human, but to the model, the taller you make the model, it must get wider as well or it will lose it's proportions. If the model is 12 inches tall and the chest is 5 inches around, and you make enlarge the model to five feet, the chest will grow to 25 inches. If you make it 6 feet, the chest would be 30 inches.

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
WonkoTheSane
Happy Holly Days


Icon 01 posted      Profile for WonkoTheSane     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DemonWolf:
quote:
Originally posted by Insignificant_Opinion:

quote:
"Barbie's measurements if she were life size: 39-23-33"

You'd have to estimate that as plus or minus an inch, because you don't know how tall she would be.

Also, on the Barbie measurement thing... it seems to me that a woman's measurements really have nothing to do with her height. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but 39-23-33 would apply just as readily to a 5'1" as to a 6' woman, it would just be a matter of proportion. In fact, I don't see how they could even come UP with a set of measurements like that without deciding on what height she would be ahead of time. They would have no frame of reference. Seems that whoever came up with this "fact" wanted to exploit the common (and true) feeling that Barbie is an unrealistic model.
The height is relavent, not to a human, but to the model, the taller you make the model, it must get wider as well or it will lose it's proportions. If the model is 12 inches tall and the chest is 5 inches around, and you make enlarge the model to five feet, the chest will grow to 25 inches. If you make it 6 feet, the chest would be 30 inches.
That's precisely my point. The same goes for a woman (or a man, or a duck-billed platypus... we're not singling anyone out, here [Wink] ). Anything will lose its proportions unless ALL dimensions grow together. To say that Barbie would have such-and-such measurements if she were "life-sized" is meaningless unless you also know what height she will be. This figure is not given, and therefore the "fact" is uncheckable unless you have a Barbie doll, a micrometer, and far too much free time on your hands. And who's to say what "life size" is anyway? [Razz]

But I try to research whenever I can. I found something on the Bulimia Anorexia Nervosa Association website that lists Barbie's proportions, if she were 6' tall, as 39-19-33. It's the closest I found, and 6' could hardly be called average for "life-sized" women at any rate. On a side note, Barbie would weigh a scant 101 pounds with these proportions. Presumeably most of it is breast... [fish]

--------------------
"It seemed to me that any civilization that had so far lost its head as to need to include detailed instructions for use in a package of toothpicks, was no longer a civilzation in which I could live and stay sane."

Posts: 1462 | From: Outside the Asylum (Massachusetts) | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DarkDan
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 212 posted      Profile for DarkDan   Author's Homepage   E-mail DarkDan   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tootsui-San:
quote:
Originally posted by Raven Waift:
Number of different familial relationships for which Hallmark makes cards:105
I saw many less than that, Aunt, Uncle, Brother, Dad, Daughter, Granddaughter, Grandson, Grandma, Grandpa, Mom, Niece, Nephew, Sister, Son, Stepparent. I don't see how this can be 105 relationships.

I know I've seen Stepfather, Stepmother, Stepson, Stepdaughter, Cousin, Mother-in-Law, Father-in-Law, Sister-in-Law, Brother-in-Law, Godmother, Godfather, "Like a Father," "Like a Mother," Baby, Secret Pal, Petsitter, Teacher, Minister, Boss, Secretary, Co-Worker, Best Friend. OK, most of those are not exactly "familial." But that's also still not close to 105.
Don't they also have "-to-be"s? Like "father-to-be", "mother-to-be", and stuff like that?

DarkDan

--------------------
Missing snopesters | snopesters Facebook group | SLC Birthdays | What does "Bookachow", "YOMANK!" and other lingo mean?
"Gonna free fall out into nothing, gonna leave this world for a while" --Tom Petty

Posts: 3698 | From: Philadelphia, PA or >Tinton Falls, NJ< | Registered: Oct 1492  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
RebelLady
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Want to know what "Bookachow", "YOMANK!" and other lingo means?
Dan...
As a newbie here, I truly appreciate you putting this link in your sig line! Thanks

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 01 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Surgeon General:
quote:
Originally posted by Tootsui-San:
quote:
Originally posted by Raven Waift:
Number of different familial relationships for which Hallmark makes cards:105
I saw many less than that, Aunt, Uncle, Brother, Dad, Daughter, Granddaughter, Grandson, Grandma, Grandpa, Mom, Niece, Nephew, Sister, Son, Stepparent. I don't see how this can be 105 relationships.

I know I've seen Stepfather, Stepmother, Stepson, Stepdaughter, Cousin, Mother-in-Law, Father-in-Law, Sister-in-Law, Brother-in-Law, Godmother, Godfather, "Like a Father," "Like a Mother," Baby, Secret Pal, Petsitter, Teacher, Minister, Boss, Secretary, Co-Worker, Best Friend. OK, most of those are not exactly "familial." But that's also still not close to 105.
Don't they also have "-to-be"s? Like "father-to-be", "mother-to-be", and stuff like that?

DarkDan

You have to also consider the "from" part. To Brother from Sister, To Brother from Brother, To Dad from both of us, etc. "Uncle" I see as having 3 different types: To Uncle, From Niece, From Nephew...that's 3 different relationships. "Father" would get: To Father, From Son, From Daughter, From Young Child.

I can see 105 with all the blood and in-law relationships plus the "from" factors.

pinqy
pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Shamrock
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Shamrock   E-mail Shamrock   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
It is possible to lead a cow upstairs but not downstairs. I have seen this everywhere, but can find no confirmation or denial.



Surely this must be something that qualifies for a government study! How can mankind survive without knowing the answer to this question? Unless, somewhere on a secret government nstallation (Area 51?) there are hundreds of multi-story houses with starving cows trapped for all time on the upper stories. Maybe that's what the black helicopters are for - cow removal.

--------------------
Of all the things I've lost,
I miss my mind the most.

Posts: 891 | From: New England | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Schizm
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 108 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shamrock:
[QB] [QUOTE] It is possible to lead a cow upstairs but not downstairs. I have seen this everywhere, but can find no confirmation or denial.



Does this have something to do with one-night-stands and drinking too much? [lol]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Queen Mac
Turkey Largo


Icon 14 posted      Profile for Queen Mac   Author's Homepage   E-mail Queen Mac   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
It is possible to lead a cow upstairs but not downstairs.
I can actually verify that this is false.

I own and show beef cattle for 4-H, and at one time while me and my family were taking my cows out to tie-outs (Don't ask any questions, unless you want to hear a long drawn out story). A batch of fair goers were standing in the way of our normal route, and knowing good and well that it's a dangerous thing to try and lead a batch of cattle through a group of people who are trying to pet them, we decided to go another route.

And the only other route was up some stairs.

So we got the cows up 'em.

The next morning, when we had to lead them back, we decided the the route we'd taken the night before was a nice one, and wasn't as long as our normal route (which consisted of trecking around two other barns.), so we lead the cows down the stairs.

And they did quite fine doing it. So this myth is false.

Apologies for ruining the jokes!

--------------------
"STUPID COOKIES! I'M GOING TO EAT THEM TO HELL!" - Nick

Posts: 43 | From: Bicknell, Indiana, USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
finkles
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 212 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BeachLife:
"Eskimos never gamble"

Why is it that with all the political correctness going around, nobody bothers to learn that these people are the Inuits. Eskimo is derogatory in the same way that Indian is to Native Americans.

OT, but when I was a senior in college, we had to do a group paper on any topic. Our group did a 100 page paper on "Alcoholism Among Native Americans on Reservations." We interviewed a lot of Native Americans and found that most of them preferred being called Indians instead of Native Americans. I'm not sure why, as I didn't conduct any of the interviews (by the way, we got an A+!).
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Banana-Fana Pho-Phildonnia
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raven Waift:
Hawaiian alphabet has 12 letters. True. See here (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_alphabet).

a backwards apostrophe, indicating a glottal stop (For example, in the word "Hawai'i") is technically a letter since it stands for a particular sound.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2