We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

the fuzzy wuzzy debate

clydethecat
clydethecat Posts: 1,087 Member
edited December 2024 in Chit-Chat
fuzzy wuzzy was a bear
fuzzy wuzzy had no hair

to this point there is no debate, we all agree that he was both a bear and had no hair. where the debate lies is in the next few words. is it:

fuzzy wuzzy wasnt fuzzy was he?

or

fuzzy wuzzy wasnt very fuzzy was he?


to my way of thinking, if fuzzy wuzzy had "no" hair, then he wasnt fuzzy at all, negating the need to say he wasnt "very" fuzzy.. but my brother disagree's his argument is basically, the cadence is better using the "very", i vehemently disagree.

discuss :)

Replies

  • oregonzoo
    oregonzoo Posts: 4,251 Member
    I always thought it was "very fuzzy" as well.
  • Barbellsandthimbles
    Barbellsandthimbles Posts: 205 Member
    Fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he. Definitely!
  • Nikiki
    Nikiki Posts: 993
    Logically the very shouldn't be necessary but I want to say it should be there... However I have no actual reason for this belief...
  • Victory2xs
    Victory2xs Posts: 16
    My Dad always said, and he heard if from his Grandma, "So he wasn't fuzzy was he?"

    Maybe he lost his fuzzy, for whatever reason, and fuzzy wazzy's hair would grow back, there for he would be fuzzy, wouldn't he?

    Now on humans, if we have hair on our head we are "fuzzy", if w have no hair we are bald. We are bald regardless of whether we lost our hair or shaved it all off. Bald is bald. But if you forget or choose not to shave for a few days and you have some fuzzy, you are no longer bald.

    So my question is, waz fuzzy wuzzy in transition of some type? Maybe if we met him a few days before or after he would have been fuzzy, living up to his name of fuzzy wuzzy.

    Just saying . . .
  • dinosnopro
    dinosnopro Posts: 2,177 Member
    Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear
    Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair
    Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he?

    Few today are aware of the nineteenth-century Sudanese origins of this familiar nursery rhyme. The first line, "...was a bear" translates roughly as "The Hadendoa warriors gave us (British) a great deal of trouble." The second line is a pun based on the word 'bear'; if the Fuzzies are bears, where is all their fur? The third line doesn't have any historical background but the end "fuzzy, was he?" makes the same sound as "Fuzzy Wuzzy."

    Meaning

    A derogatory term for a black person, especially one with fuzzy hair.

    Origin

    This term was used by 19th century British colonial soldiers for the members of an East African nomadic tribe - the Hadendoa. White settlers and military from other countries also later used the term to denote the indigenous dark skinned and curly-haired population. For example, the US military in Papua New Guinea and white European settlers in Australia. The term has always been derogatory but wasn't considered so by the white population at the time.

    From 'Fuzzy Wuzzy', one of Rudyard Kipling's Barrack Room Ballad poems, written in 1918. The poem is in the voice of an unsophisticated British soldier and expresses admiration rather than contempt, although expressed in terms that sound patronizing today.

    The Fuzzy Wuzzy Fallacy

    The Fuzzy Wuzzy Fallacy is a name for a wargaming theory coined by Richard Hamblen in the September 1976 of the Avalon Hill General wargaming magazine, loosely based on historical records of battles between the British and the Sudanese Mahdi. The Fuzzy Wuzzy Fallacy states that a single soldier with 2× firepower or attack strength does not equal to two soldiers with 1× firepower or attack strength. Instead, the soldier with 2× firepower is actually worth \sqrt{2} of the 1× soldier, if either soldier can be killed in a single hit. In fact this is little more than a rehash of Lanchester's law.

    As a result, tactics and strategy designed around this theory emphasize greater numbers and time, which the speed and mobility of the units in action can effect.
    Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_Wuzzies



    yes, I am bored
  • Jules2Be
    Jules2Be Posts: 2,238 Member
    Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear
    Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair
    Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he?

    Few today are aware of the nineteenth-century Sudanese origins of this familiar nursery rhyme. The first line, "...was a bear" translates roughly as "The Hadendoa warriors gave us (British) a great deal of trouble." The second line is a pun based on the word 'bear'; if the Fuzzies are bears, where is all their fur? The third line doesn't have any historical background but the end "fuzzy, was he?" makes the same sound as "Fuzzy Wuzzy."

    Meaning

    A derogatory term for a black person, especially one with fuzzy hair.

    Origin

    This term was used by 19th century British colonial soldiers for the members of an East African nomadic tribe - the Hadendoa. White settlers and military from other countries also later used the term to denote the indigenous dark skinned and curly-haired population. For example, the US military in Papua New Guinea and white European settlers in Australia. The term has always been derogatory but wasn't considered so by the white population at the time.

    From 'Fuzzy Wuzzy', one of Rudyard Kipling's Barrack Room Ballad poems, written in 1918. The poem is in the voice of an unsophisticated British soldier and expresses admiration rather than contempt, although expressed in terms that sound patronizing today.

    The Fuzzy Wuzzy Fallacy

    The Fuzzy Wuzzy Fallacy is a name for a wargaming theory coined by Richard Hamblen in the September 1976 of the Avalon Hill General wargaming magazine, loosely based on historical records of battles between the British and the Sudanese Mahdi. The Fuzzy Wuzzy Fallacy states that a single soldier with 2× firepower or attack strength does not equal to two soldiers with 1× firepower or attack strength. Instead, the soldier with 2× firepower is actually worth \sqrt{2} of the 1× soldier, if either soldier can be killed in a single hit. In fact this is little more than a rehash of Lanchester's law.

    As a result, tactics and strategy designed around this theory emphasize greater numbers and time, which the speed and mobility of the units in action can effect.
    Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_Wuzzies



    yes, I am bored

    srs...tuck me in.:yawn:
This discussion has been closed.

Categories