#1From Pedagogue_UK "at" msn.com Sat Feb 3 20:29:59 1996 To: r.s.laramee@apphys.hull.ac.uk (no longer valid, just here for spammers) Subject: Rules of "Stud" An observation or two: To what extent is the declaration "stud" synonymous with "asshole"? Is not the declarer, in taking it upon him/herself to make a judgment on another person and then enunciate it, worthy of the description "stud" him/herself, thus rendering the judgment redundant? "Queen" is entirely inappropriate as a term to be employed in these circumstances, though one could not expect an ex-colonial to appreciate the nuance involved here. We suggest: a) Queen Bee or b) Top Bitch or c) First Lady, emphases as indicated on the first word Regards D E Martin MSc MiMgt DipEdMan Cert Ed VD(&two scars)response: These are very good question(s) and observation(s). The extent that stud is synonymous with asshole depends on your relationship with the person (or target) you called a stud. If you really dislike the person you studded then there probably is some overlap with asshole semantics. Otherwise, it should not overlap with asshole. Please refer to Rule #9: Stud Etiquette (formerly Observation #3) in the Rules of Stud® for more about this. Your second observation in the general case is true. When one person judges another there's an implicit instance of role playing with a judge and defendant as detailed in Stud Philosophy. However in the special case of stud, what you the listener are judging is a measure of arrogance. It's like saying, "Hey, I'm an authority on humility." If you think that is studly, go ahead and stud the judge who rendered the verdict. But really, it would be inappropriate because an authority on humility is not necessarily arrogant. Would you call someone a stud if they were an authority on homeless shelters, arbiter elegantiarum *? Perhaps if you were weird you could. However, it would be inappropriate since someone who is knowledgeable about homeless shelters is doing society a favor (amicus humani generis*) and no arrogance is implied. Please refer to Rule #2: Appropriateness of Use for a refresher on this matter. I agree entirely with your observation about "Queen" being inappropriate. I can understand from an non-American standpoint where this term really should be entirely disjoint with royalty. Where in fact calling someone "the Queen" in the UK would be like calling someone "God" here. What we really need to do is qualify Rule #7: The Queen with an American and a non-American version. Mixing up the Queen rule in a country with Royal family could turn out to be a major disaster. Thank you for your suggestions, I am certainly open to more. However I prefer that new terminology go through a rigorous testing period before being inaugurated into The Rules of Stud®
|
#2From tliponis "at" genzyme.com Mon Jan 26 15:24:11 1998 Subject: RE: stuff I just read the "Rules of Stud" section. I think you have a knack for composition. I can't help but wonder if I was the catalyst for resurrecting some of the interest in Stud Theory since the section is dated October '97. A date which coincides with my visit.....a visit in which I unleashed "stud" upon the author a number of times. Actively practicing, but not fully schooled in the Rules of Stud, it has now come to my attention that I have not used proper discretion in employing Stud tactics. I have used "stud" as a response to not only arrogance but to any positive proclamation when I am in the "stud" mood. For example, "Hey buddy, I haven't seen you since high school. What have you been doing with your life?" "I just finished with Law school, I'm getting married next month, and I'm taking a job with a firm in Atlanta." "Stud" This is probably inappropriate usage for "stud" because it is a matter of fact, not necessarily arrogance or bragging. It's interesting that even though we have never spoken about "stud theory" in serious or semi-serious terms, it is a thing I have integrated into my own personality and it has endured on its own for years.....even without contact with the author or anyone else who says "stud". Distaste for pomposity may be universal and "stud" may be the universal answer. It just seems so appropriate. It may be as universal as "cool" it's just that no one has discovered it yet. I can't believe I'm writing this.response: Thank you for your compliment. It would not surprise me if your visit had something to do with the resurrection of Stud Theory... stud . The particular example you gave was an appropriate use of the term "stud" I believe. This speaker proclaimed success in 3 major areas of life all in the same breath. Without hearing the person's tone of voice, the content alone certainly appears boastful in nature. One common area of confusion is the use of stud and the idea of truth. Stud theory, as you appropriately deemed, and the truth are 2 entirely distinct and not necessarily related concepts. Whether someone is telling the truth or not when they boast is irrelevent, but calling them a stud is relevant. For example, let's say you were talking to Bill Gates and he says, "Hey, I have a market value of 50 billion dollars. That's 50 billion dollars more than you are worth." What Bill said here may be true, but regardless, you would certainly call him a stud. Likewise, if you were talking to Joe Blow, someone you didn't know, and Joe said the same thing, even though Joe was probably lying, you would still call him a stud. I hope that clears things up. Your observation about integrating stud into your own personality is interesting and it's certainly something we share in common. In fact, your observation: "Distaste for pomposity may be universal and 'stud' may be the the universal answer" may be the new slogan for the Rules of Stud® |
#3From greten@fas.harvard.edu Sun Mar 15 15:26:13 1998 To: Robert S Laramee, rlaramee@cisunix.unh.edu Subject: Re: what's up bob? i've been trying to push the bounds of arrogance as far as i can lately. my best one was when someone asked me how my midterm was. "they should have thanked me for taking it because it was such a work of brilliance." how's that one on the stud meter?response: Bones, you are a genius. Stud! |
#4 Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 07:46:29 +0000
Name: Lance Smith
Email: poguemahon "at" earthlink.net
Feedback: Your article is very amusing and well written.
response: Thanks for reading Lance!
|
#5Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:34:07 +0100 (BST) From: Martin L Poulter, M.L.Poulter "at" bristol.ac.uk To: rlaramee@cisunix.unh.edu Subject: rules of stud This is the most worthwhile web page I've seen in a long time. And that's really depressing when you think about it. response: That observation may be depressing, but these rules make me laugh out loud! |
#6Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 09:48:19 -0400 From: "Dumey, Brian", dumey@aprisma.com Subject: RE: Rule of Stud Get a life. response: hmmm... |
#7Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 07:00:15 -0700 From: John Jay Feiler, jjfeiler "at" relief.com Subject: Re: Rules O' Stud師2.0 by Robert S. Laramee You actually quoted from classical Greek literature when talking about the rules of stud. Stud. J response: Thank you. Indeed, stud is not a new concept, it's just a new implementation so-to-speak. |
#8Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 08:38:34 -0700 From: Nat Gertler nat "at" gertler.com Subject: Stud rule 8 I must disagree with the analysis in rule 8. The proper to any display of group arrogance, whether single gender is mixed, is surely "studly". This reflects on the nature of the arrogance without concern to the count or gender of the folks involved. BTW, your response form seems to be malfunctioning.response: Hmmm... I'll have to think about this one. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? |
#9 Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:13:12 -0500
From: "Black, Robert E.", RobertBl "at" baylordallas.edu
Subject: Stud Body Language
Although I have not yet participated in the extensive "stud" usage of you
and your crew, I have used similar words in the past (star, you rock,
badass, etc...). It is from this experience that I draw, and this expertise
that I use to justify my proposed resolution to the problem of body
language. I believe the appropriate reaction is one of humility and should
be practiced as follows:
1.) sway backwards at the hips
1a.) if the subject is not directly in front of you, you may sway in the
appropriate direction away from him/her
2.) flex the head down slightly as "stud" is audibled, in a show of
reverence
3.) raise the eyebrows, to demonstrate surprised amazement
4.) immediately return to previous posture; delaying this maneuver may give
the impression that you 'cramped up'
5.) when employing Rule #5 (Stud Volume), you should also place your
hands directly in front of your waist, pointing down, as to say
'back off'
The above response serves two purposes. Primarily, it adds emphasis to the
unchallengeable retort deserved of all arrogance. Secondarily, it serves a
physiological need. Many times, when statements of arrogance are initially
let loose, the ego is noticeably inflated. This may not be visible, as in a
swollen head, but it will be felt, like a sixth sense. The above mentioned
reaction serves to provide the ungrateful audience with temporary space so
as not to interrupt this ego swelling. If the uttering of "stud" is timed
properly with this posture, the ego will be reduced to shrapnel by the time
the listener resumes the original posture. This is necessary because the
arrogance projected by these statements is often contagious. This serves to
shield the audience from unnecessary exposure. I hope after some extensive
field work my suggestion may resolve the proposed problem.
Robert E. Black
response: This is good. This is really the first
attempt made at addressing the body language issue.
|
|
|