Hello,
 
  Here’s an idiom I think you’ve all heard before e.g.

  "Hey, the food was good but that bartender of yours
can’t mix drinks WORTH SOUR APPLES."

   Curiously, Irish has no equivalent of this idiom. They would say:
    He! bhi an bia go maith, ach ni feidir leis an tabhairneoir s’aghaibhse deochanna a dheanamh THAR MOLADH BEIRTE—- "Drinks beyond praise" or "Praiseworthy drinks".

   Romanian says it more like English with the same idiom:

    Ei! Mancarea era buna, dar acest barmanul tau nu poate sa amestece bauturi (alcoolice) care sa VALOREZE MERE ACRE—"Worth sour apples"

Brian C.

Never heard it before!

Sitran

[quote author=Sitran link=board=idiom;num=1079730421;start=0#2 date=03/19/04 at 19:24:39]Never heard it before!

Sitran

Me neither.  I’d have said " . . . can’t mix drinks worth a damn" or " . . . can’t mix drinks  to save his life."  

Ditto.

-Tim

   Dear Katy, Sitran and Tim,

   Thanks for your responses.

   Some words, names, idioms etc. go out of style. Maybe it is an idiom that is going out of style. This particular quote is from 1985, however, which wasn’t too long ago.

   Yours Truly,
   Brian Costello
   Seattle, Wa.

I’m with you Katy. The idiom never made it to my circles either (and they’re no where near Michigan). I do know some people from Seattle but they never mentioned sour apples. It is reasonable that the phrase would originate in the State of Washington, though. The people there would certainly be able to distinguish a sour apple from a sweet one, and would certainly have a good feel for the value of sour apples as a standard against which bartending may be measured.

SR

Aside from their own personal apple trees, if all the other apples are shipped out of state, where would the people in Washington get apples, assuming they eat apples?

SR

Point taken, Katy.

As for the idiom, "not worth sour apples" I HAVE heard another that mentions apples.

"How do you like THEM apples?" Note the stress on the word "them".  Whenever I have heard this phrase it involves the triumphant trumping of a statement  or an action made by someone else. It is similar to the phrase "put THAT in your pipe and smoke it", also spoken by a person triumphantly trumping the statement or action of another.

(for examples, not of the actual but implied uses of the two above phrases, see the thread on paederasty)

DR

Just as an aside:  "the winner, having won, showed great sportsmanship and walked away without any crowing", so as to never hear, "Put That in your pipe and smoke it." because there will always come someone better another day.

Alas, such wisdom is not in me.

SR

I have definitely heard this phrase and am surprised so many of you have not.  Love the Romanian connection too.  I did grow up in the Puget Sound region, but my folks are from Eastern Washington.

Interesting, Katy, Stout… I went back and looked, and didn’t see any particular places where trumping was clearly intended.

Maybe some people mean something else when they say they don’t want to debate an issue anymore.

-Tim

So… You’re trying to say this isn’t worth sour apples?

Katy, I hadn’t noticed the times posted (although Stout clearly was connecting the two threads with his parenthetical remark, and from your remarks it did sound like, to me, you got that connection).  I hereby publicly apologize for remarking.

Incidentally, ‘crucify’ is a very strong word, and a very strong reaction.  I’m not sure what has warranted that, but I know I speak for Shannon and myself that we are not interested in crucifying anyone.

-Tim

  Thank you Rosewoman.

   Sincerely,
   Brian Costello

Tim, the "triumphant trumping" remark tied to the paedersaty thread was meant to be humorous. If I offended you, please accept my apology.

SR

I am so confused.  I am so confused on so many levels.

A) There have been several comments about how I want to have the last word… or that I don’t want someone else to have the last word… or that I think someone else would like to have the last word… or something.  I’m totally in the dark about this.  I hate having the last word on threads like this because then I lose sleep wondering what I said that was so awful it killed the thread.  So, in the World of Shannon, "last word" does not equal "good thing".

B) The comment that referenced the other thread about "triumphant trumping" was not one that Tim and I took offence at.  We were a little irritated about it until Katy pointed out the time of the post.  When Tim and I read it, we thought that it was posted AFTER we had been asked to drop the topic on the other thread.  Also, neither one of us were upset or out to "crucify", or otherwise reprimand, anyone.  Our first thought about it was that it seemed to be a secret joke between Katy and Stout, possibly at our expense.  Our second thought was that we couldn’t figure out the joke because we didn’t see anything on the other thread that looked like "triumphant trumping" on anyone’s part.  This added to our confusion, and led us to wonder if there were numerous PMs going back and forth with humor or insights to which we were not privvy.

C) I can understand why someone would see "stiff-necked" as a deragotory adjective.  However, neither Tim, nor I, considered it "stubborn pride" but merely "stubbornly unwilling to consider other options".  I don’t see the reasons that the BSA made the decisions that they did as "stiff-necked" because I don’t know first hand if they considered other options or not.  However, I can understand why someone would assume that this might be the case.

D) Maybe it is because I am very used to have very close friends disagree with me on this particular issue (I guess I should have posted this on the other thread, but here it is, anyway), but neither Tim nor I believe that this is an issue that makes or breaks a friendship.  

E) I can understand why a person would be angry about businesses and persons who chose to stop supporting an organization because of its views on an issue.  Certainly if a group of folks has told businesses that they will not patronize their establishment if they continue to support a non-profit organization because of their principles, it is frustrating for that organization.  However, typically, a religious organization that is penalized by one sector for its principles can count on increased support from other sectors.  I am very careful about who I support, inadvertently, with my money.  Just as it is within the rights of an organization to espouse and act on its principles, it is to be expected that this could work for or against the fund-raising efforts of the organization.  I can understand why a person would feel frustrated over this, but the community that pushes for the pull of support from the organization, is only partially to blame.  They are doing what they think is right, and apparently, the businesses that go along with it do too.  My guess is that no one has the goal of killing the organization, necessarily, but that they don’t want to support something that they deem harmful in some way.

Tim and I have been giving each other quite a few of those "huh??" looks as we have watched this issue unfold.  We are REALLY missing the boat on this.  We know where we stand on this, and why we do.  We think we understand where others here stand on this issue, and we think we understand why.  But some of the issues brought up leave us scratching our heads.  I don’t know how to respond to much of what has been said today because I can’t figure out what the assumptions are about what is going on.  Tim and I are completely ready, past done, willing to just drop it… unless someone else would like to fill us in on some of the other things that are confusing us.  That is all I can say and I sincerely HOPE that this will NOT be the very last word… I don’t need to say anything else, but it would be great to go to bed not completely confused.

~Shannon

Sounds like everyone has a case of the sour grapes rather than the sour apples.   :-* (sour apple face!)