RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Origin of SPAM (Yes! I am a google GOD)

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Ross, Matthew wrote:

> > For several reasons.  One is that "foo" was very popular just before
> > WWII. Another reason is that some people who have been studying 'foo'
> > believe that it had something to do with the subsequent invention of
> > the words SNAFU and FUBAR.
>
> Could you enlighten us as to who these people are or to some of the data
> they've gathered that supports this conclusion? I've been googling, but
> I've not found anyone that agrees with this.

Sure, I can tell you where I read something abou tit:

http://www.toonopedia.com/smokey.htm

  "It may have influenced the formation of the World War II slang
   expression 'fubar' (a relative of 'snafu')."

My original message only said this:

    "We may never know if it was part of the motivation for FUBAR and
     SNAFU, but it might have been."

Your reply said this (among other things):

    "It wasn't, those are pretty well known."

I'm objecting to your claim of certainty, that's all.  Since then you've
written several things that are not accurate about my position on this
(more on that below).


> > Yes, we know that those are acronyms and we know what they mean, but
> > there's more to it than that.
>
> It's not that they're acronyms with known meanings, its that they had a
> clear derivation from the situation they were coined in that did not
> include the word "foo".
>
> > For example, they could have pronounced them like 'snaffuh' and
> > 'fuhbar' (pronouncing the 'u' as in 'up') or like 'snafyoo' and
> > 'fyoobar', but they didn't.  Why not? Well, maybe it was because 'foo'
> > was already popular and funny and so they wanted to use the foo sound
> > in their new funny term.
>
> Then you're suggesting the pronunciation is based on "foo" rather than
> the words derivation?

Of course I'm suggesting that something *might* be true, not that it is
true, (a subtle point, I guess) and you are suggesting that it is
impossible.  How can a pronunciation be based on a derivation?  What do
you mean?  If the 'FU' in FUBAR comes from "fucked up," as it obviously
does, then "pronunciation based on derivation" should lead to the
pronunciation of FUBAR as "fuhbar," right?  So the pronunciation is not
based on the derivation.


> > My point is, we (you) don't know.
>
> I don't know that the data that was shown for the derivation of SPAM was
> true either. I choose to believe it because it isn't far-fetched.
> Claiming FUBAR and SNAFU are derived from Foo and not the phrases they
> are acronyms for IS far-fetched.

And here's where you've gone completely off the deep end.  Did you read
what I wrote earlier?  When did I ever claim that "FUBAR and SNAFU are
derived from Foo?"  How would they be?  My idea is only that they were
partly motivated by the popularity of 'foo.' In the jargon file it says
the following about Foo during and before WWII:

   According to the Encyclopedia of American Comics, 'Foo' fever swept the
   U.S., finding its way into popular songs and generating over 500 'Foo
   Clubs.' ...

   One place 'foo' is known to have remained live is in the U.S. military
   during the WWII years. ...

   The U.S. and British militaries frequently swapped slang terms during
   the war (see kluge and kludge for another important example) Period
   sources reported that 'FOO' became a semi-legendary subject of WWII
   British-army graffiti more or less equivalent to the American Kilroy.
   Where British troops went, the graffito .FOO was here. or something
   similar showed up.

The fact that both WWII terms FUBAR and SNAFU have the 'foo' syllable in
them is a complete coincidence, you believe.  It is impossible, you claim,
that there is any relationship between 'foo' and those two terms.  You
have offered no reason why I should believe you.  I have some doubts and
good reasons for those doubts.


> > It is remarkable that SNAFU and FUBAR popped up just after foo did.
> > It could be a complete coincidence, but I have some doubts.
>
> I don't doubt that Foo had something to do with their popularity, and
> could even have contributed to how most people pronounced it, but
> claiming Foo motivated people to conjure up those terms is going to
> require a lot more logic put behind the argument.

I think we barely disagree then.  I didn't claim that "Foo motivated
people to conjure up those terms," I only said this:

    "We may never know if it was part of the motivation for FUBAR and
     SNAFU, but it might have been."

You think the 'foo' syllable could have been part of the reason for the
popularity of FUBAR and SNAFU, but you think it is not possible that the
love of 'foo' was part of the motivation for constructing these acronyms
in the first place.  You're completely wrong because it's entirely
possible.

I'm wasting my time writing to you because I have a big job to do and I'm
avoiding it.  Back to work now.


> More towards where we got onto this topic of foobar vs. fubar:
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/foobar.html

At least you did read one of my earlier messages, I guess, or maybe you
didn't read them and you found the jargon file on your own.

Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion