Link to Mighty Cecil’s column of the Pirate flag.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_292.html
Okay, I’ll bite.
Who is Roger wilco, & when did the term begin to be used?
Also, when did the term “roger-dodger” come from?
Rodger the Dodger was Staubach QB for the Cowbots. Whether it was used before then I don’t know.
roger morse R is dit dah dit easy to tap out
wilco = will comply
so, rogerwilco = understood and will comply
My son and wife are hams.
and lastly…
Cecil posed “He’s jolly because he hasn’t got any lips? What kind of weird coastal humor is that supposed to be? Better leave the witticisms around here to me.”
Because his lips are missing…that’s why he always seems to be smiling, thus jolly.
Damn YodaSpeak…sneaks up on you it does. 
Ok, how about this- if the pirates were after you, you were in for a jolly rogering!
Indeed, I’m surprised Unca Cec didn’t mention that option, given the fairly earthy nature of pirates’ senses of humour (presumably).
“Jolly roger” is probably a contraction of “jolly rogerer”, meaning essentially “happy fucker”, which I imagine they were much of the time.
Indeed a bit of searching finds http://www.piratesinfo.com/detail/detail.php?article_id=68 , which says in part: “One of the characteristics of pirates was their brutal treatment of female prisoners, who commonly were ‘rogered at the rail’ by one and all and then thrown overboard, to fend for themselves”.
Rhyming slang may put Roger the Dodger (or, indeed, Lodger!) at any date, but all British readers know Rodger the Dodger as the cartoon character appearing in the ‘Beano’.
Start date 1953 according to this geek-sheet:
Don’t believe everything you can call up on the internet. That piece of drivel is just one example.
But “rogering” is indeed a British-ism for fucking. Does it’s use go back far enough to be a pirate-ism?
Yes, it does go back that far, and so does “roger” = “penis”.
But there is no proof that the name of the pirate flag is connected to this, and it really doesn’t make any a-priori sense. The fact that pirates were probably rapists doesn’t mean that pirates thought of rape as the sine qua non of their “brand recognition”, so to speak.
Just to add a fact.
Jolly Roger is cited first from the OED:
While I can’t comment on whether it’s significant, notice that the listing seems to cite two things: Roger, and Jolly roger. Both meaning a pirate flag.
Make of it what you will.
[I’m peeling the following off the top of my head, so don’t chastise me for not citing sources: this ain’t no scholarly journal. Besides, I don’t cite sources when I’m drinking. Google it yerself!]
-
The Knights Templar rode (and sailed) under a red (and white) device, the “Jolie Rouge.”
-
The skull-and-crossbones (the Banner of Golgotha) was an established Templar symbol, and we’re talking 12th century here.
-
Once the Templars were driven from Acre, they fought against the Saracens in the only theater left: they ruled the Mediterranean ruthlessly for some time.
-
The Templars were “de-mainstreamed” on Friday the 13th of October, 1307, rather visciously. Disbanded and either killed or forced into hiding and self-imposed exile, the Templars from that day forward could only exist underground, as outlaws.
-
On the eve of the synchronized arrests of the Templars (the ones that could be caught anyway), the bulk of their fleet mysteriously disappeared from the port of La Rochelle.
-
From this mess, the skull-and-crossbones emerged as a powerful orphaned symbol. Some of the original (Barbary) pirates were probably vagabond (and bitter) Templars, others were unrelated corsairs and cutthroats who adopted the feared skull-and-crossbones as a standard of forboding.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by skidoo *
**[I’m peeling the following off the top of my head, so don’t chastise me for not citing sources: this ain’t no scholarly journal. Besides, I don’t cite sources when I’m drinking. Google it yerself!]
Actually, this site(SDMB) tries to be the electronic message board equivlent of a scholarly journal. While we don’t hold the chatter parts to scholarly standards, we do hope that people who post answers to General Questions, Comments on Staff Reports, and Comments on Cecil’s Column’s would try to at least do more than post uninformed opinions or website info that is highly speculative.
I did take the time to Google a site which seems to have much of the info on the Knights Templar that you offered.
You left of the best parts. The site http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:NDYzF2q2H2wJ:skullandcrossbones.org/articles/jolly-roger.htm+"jolie+rouge"&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 also offers the following info about the Knights Templar:
l. Friday the 13th is known(today) as an unlucky day as this was the day the Templars were “de-mainstreamed.” not likely
- “There is also evidence that the Templar fleet travelled to North America in 1398…” Right
I know that citing faulty claims doesn’t disprove their other claims. But it might indicate that they are less than scholarly about what they post.
Hahahahaha! Hahahahahaha!
skidoo—your laughter is not only ill mannered, but misplaced.
Here on the SDMB, we shoot for a higher standard.
When people ask you to back up your positions with a cite, you are more or less expected to “put up or shut up”.
Either come up with the cite, or back off, but learn a little manners, as you are still a newbie here, and haven’t quite grasped our notions of Board Manners.
I am not a Moderator, just trying to clue in a newbie about the “local customs”. You ain’t gonna make no friends this way.
Originally posted by samclem
[BActually, this site(SDMB) tries to be the electronic message board equivlent of a scholarly journal. **
Hahahahaha! Hahahahahaha!
skidoo. I’m not sure if you’re laughing at my inability to proofread, or at my contention. If the former, then I deserve it.
I can spell equivalent. I can code, most of the time.
But you still can’t quote any reliable source for YOUR statements. As you said, “I’m peeling the following off the top of my head.”