Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Here's the answer...
116 views
Skip to first unread message
Lawrence Greenwald
May 12, 2013, 1:59:33 AM5/12/13
to
There should be a special word in the English language to identify
people who create problems and then turn around and offer up their own
tailor-made bogus non-solutions designed to completely avoid the root
causes of the situation under consideration. 'Traitor' might be a
good choice, but lacks the requisite specificity. One of the problems
with contemporary English is it lacks many such words that would
otherwise categorically identify certain kinds of person, place, or
thing -- making it difficult or impossible to think analytically about
such objects. These shortcomings of the English lexicon are
representative of Orwellian linguistics at work in the real world.
Already there. It's called "Congress".
--LG
Bill Leary
May 12, 2013, 10:14:44 AM5/12/13
to
"Lawrence Greenwald" wrote in message
news:lawrence.greenwald-8...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
((.. added >'s ..))
I thought of that one right off, but didn't mention it because "Congress"
would be the correct word to describe quite a range of ills besides this
one.
While I can think of a number of occupations that do this (most are
variation on the long con) there actually doesn't really seem to be a good
word to describe ALL the people who do this. Well, unless we accept the
idea that ANYONE doing this is a con man (or woman).
- Bill
news:lawrence.greenwald-8...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
((.. added >'s ..))
would be the correct word to describe quite a range of ills besides this
one.
While I can think of a number of occupations that do this (most are
variation on the long con) there actually doesn't really seem to be a good
word to describe ALL the people who do this. Well, unless we accept the
idea that ANYONE doing this is a con man (or woman).
- Bill
Bill Leary
May 12, 2013, 10:35:16 AM5/12/13
to
Sorry to reply to my own message. The cat on the desk distracted me and I
hit "send" before I finished the message.
What I meant to add was that, even if "con-men" or "Congress" is the correct
word, it just doesn't seem strong enough.
Whatever the correct word is for this behavior, it should be one you can't
use in polite company. It should be obscene.
But then, I know a few people who'd say that the word "Congress" *IS*
obscene.
- Bill
"Bill Leary" wrote in message
news:8L6dnZS96dFJPhLM...@giganews.com...
hit "send" before I finished the message.
What I meant to add was that, even if "con-men" or "Congress" is the correct
word, it just doesn't seem strong enough.
Whatever the correct word is for this behavior, it should be one you can't
use in polite company. It should be obscene.
But then, I know a few people who'd say that the word "Congress" *IS*
obscene.
- Bill
"Bill Leary" wrote in message
news:8L6dnZS96dFJPhLM...@giganews.com...
Ibmekon
May 12, 2013, 11:17:02 AM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:35:16 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
wrote:
Howsabout "Mafiavellian" - from Italy where political subversion by
the Mafia is a way of life.
Carl Goldsworthy
"Science advances one funeral at a time."
Max Planck, German winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918
wrote:
the Mafia is a way of life.
Carl Goldsworthy
"Science advances one funeral at a time."
Max Planck, German winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918
Dan Espen
May 12, 2013, 12:20:11 PM5/12/13
to
--
Dan Espen
Bill Leary
May 12, 2013, 12:49:45 PM5/12/13
to
"Ibmekon" wrote in message
news:uccvo8dkut5ullrfc...@4ax.com...
> Howsabout "Mafiavellian" - from Italy where political subversion by
> the Mafia is a way of life.
Maybe. But it suffers from not being dirty. Or is it in Italian?
- Bill
news:uccvo8dkut5ullrfc...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:35:16 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry to reply to my own message. The cat on the desk distracted me and
>> I
>> hit "send" before I finished the message.
>>
>> What I meant to add was that, even if "con-men" or "Congress" is the
>> correct
>> word, it just doesn't seem strong enough.
>>
>> Whatever the correct word is for this behavior, it should be one you
>> can't
>> use in polite company. It should be obscene.
>>
>> But then, I know a few people who'd say that the word "Congress" *IS*
>> obscene.
>> ((..omitted..))
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry to reply to my own message. The cat on the desk distracted me and
>> I
>> hit "send" before I finished the message.
>>
>> What I meant to add was that, even if "con-men" or "Congress" is the
>> correct
>> word, it just doesn't seem strong enough.
>>
>> Whatever the correct word is for this behavior, it should be one you
>> can't
>> use in polite company. It should be obscene.
>>
>> But then, I know a few people who'd say that the word "Congress" *IS*
>> obscene.
> Howsabout "Mafiavellian" - from Italy where political subversion by
> the Mafia is a way of life.
- Bill
Ibmekon
May 12, 2013, 2:47:26 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:49:45 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
I cite my maternal grandma Olgiati from Poschiavo, an Italian speaking
town in Switzerland as an excuse for my indiscretion ! Her daughter
dictated a mini biography to her son, before dementia took away her
memories. Guess they never heard of newsgroups.
Niccol� di Bernardo dei Machiavelli - Italian 1469�1527
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
Carl Goldsworthy
wrote:
>"Ibmekon" wrote in message
>news:uccvo8dkut5ullrfc...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:35:16 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to reply to my own message. The cat on the desk distracted me and
>>> I
>>> hit "send" before I finished the message.
>>>
>>> What I meant to add was that, even if "con-men" or "Congress" is the
>>> correct
>>> word, it just doesn't seem strong enough.
>>>
>>> Whatever the correct word is for this behavior, it should be one you
>>> can't
>>> use in polite company. It should be obscene.
>>>
>>> But then, I know a few people who'd say that the word "Congress" *IS*
>>> obscene.
>>> ((..omitted..))
>
>> Howsabout "Mafiavellian" - from Italy where political subversion by
>> the Mafia is a way of life.
>
>Maybe. But it suffers from not being dirty. Or is it in Italian?
>
> - Bill
The OP wanted an English word - so I ahem, adapted "Machiavellian".
>"Ibmekon" wrote in message
>news:uccvo8dkut5ullrfc...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:35:16 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to reply to my own message. The cat on the desk distracted me and
>>> I
>>> hit "send" before I finished the message.
>>>
>>> What I meant to add was that, even if "con-men" or "Congress" is the
>>> correct
>>> word, it just doesn't seem strong enough.
>>>
>>> Whatever the correct word is for this behavior, it should be one you
>>> can't
>>> use in polite company. It should be obscene.
>>>
>>> But then, I know a few people who'd say that the word "Congress" *IS*
>>> obscene.
>>> ((..omitted..))
>
>> Howsabout "Mafiavellian" - from Italy where political subversion by
>> the Mafia is a way of life.
>
>Maybe. But it suffers from not being dirty. Or is it in Italian?
>
> - Bill
I cite my maternal grandma Olgiati from Poschiavo, an Italian speaking
town in Switzerland as an excuse for my indiscretion ! Her daughter
dictated a mini biography to her son, before dementia took away her
memories. Guess they never heard of newsgroups.
Niccol� di Bernardo dei Machiavelli - Italian 1469�1527
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
Carl Goldsworthy
Bill Leary
May 12, 2013, 3:21:01 PM5/12/13
to
"Ibmekon" wrote in message
news:9lnvo852pgba98ont...@4ax.com...
> I cite my maternal grandma Olgiati from Poschiavo, an Italian speaking
> town in Switzerland as an excuse for my indiscretion !
No, no! That's fine. A made up word can be any language you want it to be.
Doesn't matter what it's roots are. I was just sort of hoping it was
obscene in SOME translation. The topic we're trying to name sure is.
> Her daughter dictated a mini biography to her son, before
> dementia took away her memories. Guess they never heard
> of newsgroups.
>
> Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli - Italian 1469–1527
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
- Bill
news:9lnvo852pgba98ont...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:49:45 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>>"Ibmekon" wrote in message
> wrote:
>>"Ibmekon" wrote in message
>>> Howsabout "Mafiavellian" - from Italy where political subversion by
>>> the Mafia is a way of life.
>>
>> Maybe. But it suffers from not being dirty. Or is it in Italian?
>
>>> the Mafia is a way of life.
>>
>> Maybe. But it suffers from not being dirty. Or is it in Italian?
>
> The OP wanted an English word - so I ahem, adapted "Machiavellian".
I kinda thought you were going to say that.
> I cite my maternal grandma Olgiati from Poschiavo, an Italian speaking
> town in Switzerland as an excuse for my indiscretion !
Doesn't matter what it's roots are. I was just sort of hoping it was
obscene in SOME translation. The topic we're trying to name sure is.
> Her daughter dictated a mini biography to her son, before
> dementia took away her memories. Guess they never heard
> of newsgroups.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
- Bill
jmfbahciv
May 13, 2013, 10:20:47 AM5/13/13
to
last group who did this. Only they took pleasure in seeing the mess;
they didn't do it so they could clean it up. The ones I knew never cleaned
up their messes.
/BAH
Charles Richmond
May 13, 2013, 3:42:07 PM5/13/13
to
"Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:usudnZk8DKc-NRLM...@giganews.com...
four-letter work alright!!! :-)
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
news:usudnZk8DKc-NRLM...@giganews.com...
> Sorry to reply to my own message. The cat on the desk distracted me and I
> hit "send" before I finished the message.
>
> What I meant to add was that, even if "con-men" or "Congress" is the
> correct word, it just doesn't seem strong enough.
>
> Whatever the correct word is for this behavior, it should be one you can't
> use in polite company. It should be obscene.
>
> But then, I know a few people who'd say that the word "Congress" *IS*
> obscene.
>
"Congress" is a four-letter word!!! Let's see.... 1... 2... 3... yep, a
> hit "send" before I finished the message.
>
> What I meant to add was that, even if "con-men" or "Congress" is the
> correct word, it just doesn't seem strong enough.
>
> Whatever the correct word is for this behavior, it should be one you can't
> use in polite company. It should be obscene.
>
> But then, I know a few people who'd say that the word "Congress" *IS*
> obscene.
>
four-letter work alright!!! :-)
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
ma...@mail.com
May 14, 2013, 4:50:54 PM5/14/13
to
The party system is the greatest threat to democracy.
--
Greymaus
Simon Brown
May 14, 2013, 5:12:55 PM5/14/13
to
<ma...@mail.com> wrote in message news:avfmde...@mid.individual.net...
Walter Bushell
May 15, 2013, 9:43:17 AM5/15/13
to
didn't want a party system, but a non party system is dynamically
unstable.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Dave Garland
May 15, 2013, 11:49:09 AM5/15/13
to
Yes, but... without parties, only the famous or rich would have the
resources to run for office higher than town council. (Even with
parties, that tends to be the case, but the parties do bring some
resources to the campaign.) If you have a town meeting with 400
participants, you don't need parties, but those techniques won't scale
to 10 or 300 million. The US founders dealt with this by having
legislative bodies elect the members of higher bodies (there was no
direct election of either Senators or President). That scheme made
sense in the context of the 18th century, but it's not particularly
democratic either.
resources to run for office higher than town council. (Even with
parties, that tends to be the case, but the parties do bring some
resources to the campaign.) If you have a town meeting with 400
participants, you don't need parties, but those techniques won't scale
to 10 or 300 million. The US founders dealt with this by having
legislative bodies elect the members of higher bodies (there was no
direct election of either Senators or President). That scheme made
sense in the context of the 18th century, but it's not particularly
democratic either.
Shmuel Metz
May 16, 2013, 9:31:45 PM5/16/13
to
In <avfmde...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/14/2013
Second greatest threat; the greatest threat is the lack of a public
willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote. The voter
turnout figures are appallingly low.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Second greatest threat; the greatest threat is the lack of a public
willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote. The voter
turnout figures are appallingly low.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Simon Brown
May 16, 2013, 11:32:13 PM5/16/13
to
"Shmuel (Seymour J.)Metz" <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:51958881$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net...
> In <avfmde...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/14/2013
> at 08:50 PM, ma...@mail.com said:
>
>>The party system is the greatest threat to democracy.
> Second greatest threat; the greatest threat is the lack of a
> public willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote.
They do get out and vote when they believe that things
> at 08:50 PM, ma...@mail.com said:
>
>>The party system is the greatest threat to democracy.
> Second greatest threat; the greatest threat is the lack of a
> public willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote.
are being done badly enough to warrant doing that. So
in that sense it is not the second greatest threat either.
> The voter turnout figures are appallingly low.
actually see a very different result, so it is hard to
claim that the voters not voting is actually much
of a threat to democracy in the great democracies.
Dan Espen
May 17, 2013, 12:05:14 AM5/17/13
to
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
> In <avfmde...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/14/2013
> at 08:50 PM, ma...@mail.com said:
>
>>The party system is the greatest threat to democracy.
>
> Second greatest threat; the greatest threat is the lack of a public
> willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote. The voter
> turnout figures are appallingly low.
And the public is appallingly misinformed.
> In <avfmde...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/14/2013
> at 08:50 PM, ma...@mail.com said:
>
>>The party system is the greatest threat to democracy.
>
> Second greatest threat; the greatest threat is the lack of a public
> willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote. The voter
> turnout figures are appallingly low.
Isn't the trick to get only the well informed with good judgment and pure
motives out to vote?
And then monkeys fly out of somewhere...
--
Dan Espen
Charlie Gibbs
May 17, 2013, 11:47:23 AM5/17/13
to
In article <51958881$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,
That encapsulates the attitude of many potential voters.
There is such a sense of despair these days that many people
feel (rightly or wrongly) that it doesn't matter which set of
scoundrels get in because they're all scoundrels anyway.
"Who could I possibly vote for?" such people ask me. "Nobody,"
I reply, "but there's always someone you can vote against." You
can no longer vote for the one who will benefit you the most, so
you vote for the one who will hurt you the least. Or, in extreme
cases, you hold your nose and vote for the one most likely to stop
the one who could hurt you really badly.
This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
so much that there must be some value in it.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid (Seymour J.) writes:
> In <avfmde...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/14/2013
> at 08:50 PM, ma...@mail.com said:
>
>> The party system is the greatest threat to democracy.
>
> Second greatest threat; the greatest threat is the lack of a public
> willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote. The voter
> turnout figures are appallingly low.
"Don't vote, it just encourages them."
> In <avfmde...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/14/2013
> at 08:50 PM, ma...@mail.com said:
>
>> The party system is the greatest threat to democracy.
>
> Second greatest threat; the greatest threat is the lack of a public
> willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote. The voter
> turnout figures are appallingly low.
That encapsulates the attitude of many potential voters.
There is such a sense of despair these days that many people
feel (rightly or wrongly) that it doesn't matter which set of
scoundrels get in because they're all scoundrels anyway.
"Who could I possibly vote for?" such people ask me. "Nobody,"
I reply, "but there's always someone you can vote against." You
can no longer vote for the one who will benefit you the most, so
you vote for the one who will hurt you the least. Or, in extreme
cases, you hold your nose and vote for the one most likely to stop
the one who could hurt you really badly.
This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
so much that there must be some value in it.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Shmuel Metz
May 17, 2013, 7:14:35 PM5/17/13
to
In <avlmn6...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/17/2013
>But even where voting is compulsory, you don t
them willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote. In
fact, if they were willing then there would be no point to forcing
them.
at 01:32 PM, "Simon Brown" <s...@kigfr.com> said:
>They do get out and vote when they believe that things
>are being done badly enough to warrant doing that.
FSVO "they". When was the last time that you saw a large turnout?
>They do get out and vote when they believe that things
>are being done badly enough to warrant doing that.
>But even where voting is compulsory, you don t
>actually see a very different result, so it is hard to
>claim that the voters not voting
Red herring; forcing people to go through the motions doesn't make
>claim that the voters not voting
them willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote. In
fact, if they were willing then there would be no point to forcing
them.
Simon Brown
May 17, 2013, 11:01:18 PM5/17/13
to
"Shmuel (Seymour J.)Metz" <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
> In <avlmn6...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/17/2013
> at 01:32 PM, "Simon Brown" <s...@kigfr.com> said:
>
>>They do get out and vote when they believe that things
>>are being done badly enough to warrant doing that.
> FSVO "they". When was the last time that you saw a large turnout?
The last time the voters decided that things were being
> at 01:32 PM, "Simon Brown" <s...@kigfr.com> said:
>
>>They do get out and vote when they believe that things
>>are being done badly enough to warrant doing that.
> FSVO "they". When was the last time that you saw a large turnout?
done badly enough was when they gave Hoover the bums
rush at the ballot box.
>>But even where voting is compulsory, you don t
>>actually see a very different result, so it is hard to
>>claim that the voters not voting
> Red herring;
> forcing people to go through the motions doesn't make
> them willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote.
make any difference to how viable the democracy is.
> In fact, if they were willing then there would be no point to forcing
> them.
Shmuel Metz
May 18, 2013, 9:48:15 PM5/18/13
to
In <ictxm2m...@home.home>, on 05/17/2013
at 12:05 AM, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> said:
>Isn't the trick to get only the well informed with good judgment and
>pure motives out to vote?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>Isn't the trick to get only the well informed with good judgment and
>pure motives out to vote?
Dan Espen
May 18, 2013, 10:52:51 PM5/18/13
to
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
> In <ictxm2m...@home.home>, on 05/17/2013
> at 12:05 AM, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> said:
>
>>Isn't the trick to get only the well informed with good judgment and
>>pure motives out to vote?
>
> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You doing this on purpose?
> at 12:05 AM, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> said:
>
>>Isn't the trick to get only the well informed with good judgment and
>>pure motives out to vote?
>
> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
First it's a "dog's breakfast", now some obscure (to me) Latin.
Are you trying to overload my brain circuits?
At my age I only have a little storage room left.
"Who will guard the guards".
We don't need guards when we have people with pure motives.
In fact the world will be perfect except for the monkeys flying out of
unmentionable places.
--
Dan Espen
Bill Leary
May 18, 2013, 11:43:42 PM5/18/13
to
"Dan Espen" wrote in message news:ichahzi...@home.home...
issue.
I went to a wedding today. Some people I haven't seen in years, and didn't
have much connection with even then, I remembered their names instantly.
The daughter of one of my best friends, a woman we discuss at least every
couple of weeks, I retrieved a name I *knew* wasn't hers and couldn't get
past it to remember her actual name.
- Bill
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
> You doing this on purpose?
>
> First it's a "dog's breakfast", now some obscure (to me) Latin.
> Are you trying to overload my brain circuits?
> At my age I only have a little storage room left.
I find it's the retrieval mechanism, not the storage capacity, that's the
>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
> You doing this on purpose?
>
> First it's a "dog's breakfast", now some obscure (to me) Latin.
> Are you trying to overload my brain circuits?
> At my age I only have a little storage room left.
issue.
I went to a wedding today. Some people I haven't seen in years, and didn't
have much connection with even then, I remembered their names instantly.
The daughter of one of my best friends, a woman we discuss at least every
couple of weeks, I retrieved a name I *knew* wasn't hers and couldn't get
past it to remember her actual name.
- Bill
ma...@mail.com
May 19, 2013, 4:23:43 AM5/19/13
to
On 2013-05-19, Bill Leary <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Dan Espen" wrote in message news:ichahzi...@home.home...
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
>>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>> You doing this on purpose?
>>
>> First it's a "dog's breakfast", now some obscure (to me) Latin.
>> Are you trying to overload my brain circuits?
>> At my age I only have a little storage room left.
>
> I find it's the retrieval mechanism, not the storage capacity, that's the
> issue.
>
> I went to a wedding today. Some people I haven't seen in years, and didn't
> have much connection with even then, I remembered their names instantly.
> The daughter of one of my best friends, a woman we discuss at least every
> couple of weeks[1], I retrieved a name I *knew* wasn't hers and couldn't get
> "Dan Espen" wrote in message news:ichahzi...@home.home...
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
>>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>> You doing this on purpose?
>>
>> First it's a "dog's breakfast", now some obscure (to me) Latin.
>> Are you trying to overload my brain circuits?
>> At my age I only have a little storage room left.
>
> I find it's the retrieval mechanism, not the storage capacity, that's the
> issue.
>
> I went to a wedding today. Some people I haven't seen in years, and didn't
> have much connection with even then, I remembered their names instantly.
> The daughter of one of my best friends, a woman we discuss at least every
> past it to remember her actual name.
>
> - Bill
>
I went to a wedding a week or so ago, the best man spoke for
>
> - Bill
>
between 45 and 70 minutes. (various estimates). I wont forget
his stupid face for a while.
[1] intresting stories? :)
--
Greymaus
Ibmekon
May 19, 2013, 5:37:28 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:43:42 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
wrote:
The other day I was making idle conversation and tried to remember the
name of a footballer, currentlty injured, who
plays for the Ireland team.
No joy, so I described him as an Aston Villa player and defender - and
was given the name Richard Dunne.
What was odd was that the first thing that came to mind then was
Richard Dunn the boxer from Yorkshire, who fought Muhammad Ali for the
world heavyweight title in 1976.
My brain clearly ran an SQL query of "Richard Dunn" AND "from
Midlands" AND "footballer" - returning NULL.
But leaving a set in the WORKING-STORAGE section of my memory.
Carl Goldsworthy.
wrote:
name of a footballer, currentlty injured, who
plays for the Ireland team.
No joy, so I described him as an Aston Villa player and defender - and
was given the name Richard Dunne.
What was odd was that the first thing that came to mind then was
Richard Dunn the boxer from Yorkshire, who fought Muhammad Ali for the
world heavyweight title in 1976.
My brain clearly ran an SQL query of "Richard Dunn" AND "from
Midlands" AND "footballer" - returning NULL.
But leaving a set in the WORKING-STORAGE section of my memory.
Carl Goldsworthy.
Bill Leary
May 19, 2013, 8:29:36 AM5/19/13
to
wrote in message news:avrggf...@mid.individual.net...
better than data memory. Even people who's names I can't recall I find I
often recognized them and know WHO they are (what they do, what their
connects is to me), but can't get their name.
> [1] intresting stories? :)
No, just small talk. He's pretty close to her and see's her once or twice a
month and they talk at least once a week. His and my talk is just friends
keeping up to date. At the wedding I was fairly up to date on most of the
bride's side of the family due to this small talk. The bride is the niece
of my friend, daughter of his sister. The sister also being a pretty close
friend of mine, though I rarely see her these days.
- Bill
> On 2013-05-19, Bill Leary <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote:
>> "Dan Espen" wrote in message news:ichahzi...@home.home...
>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
>>>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>>> You doing this on purpose?
>>>
>>> First it's a "dog's breakfast", now some obscure (to me) Latin.
>>> Are you trying to overload my brain circuits?
>>> At my age I only have a little storage room left.
>>
>> I find it's the retrieval mechanism, not the storage capacity, that's
>> the issue.
>>
>> I went to a wedding today. Some people I haven't seen in years, and
>> didn't have much connection with even then, I remembered their names
>> instantly. The daughter of one of my best friends, a woman we discuss
>> at least every couple of weeks[1], I retrieved a name I *knew* wasn't
>> hers and couldn't get past it to remember her actual name.
>
>> "Dan Espen" wrote in message news:ichahzi...@home.home...
>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
>>>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>>> You doing this on purpose?
>>>
>>> First it's a "dog's breakfast", now some obscure (to me) Latin.
>>> Are you trying to overload my brain circuits?
>>> At my age I only have a little storage room left.
>>
>> I find it's the retrieval mechanism, not the storage capacity, that's
>> the issue.
>>
>> I went to a wedding today. Some people I haven't seen in years, and
>> didn't have much connection with even then, I remembered their names
>> instantly. The daughter of one of my best friends, a woman we discuss
>> at least every couple of weeks[1], I retrieved a name I *knew* wasn't
>> hers and couldn't get past it to remember her actual name.
>
> I went to a wedding a week or so ago, the best man spoke for
> between 45 and 70 minutes. (various estimates). I wont forget
> his stupid face for a while.
Well, there's that. And, for me, visual and aural memory seems to work
> between 45 and 70 minutes. (various estimates). I wont forget
> his stupid face for a while.
better than data memory. Even people who's names I can't recall I find I
often recognized them and know WHO they are (what they do, what their
connects is to me), but can't get their name.
> [1] intresting stories? :)
No, just small talk. He's pretty close to her and see's her once or twice a
month and they talk at least once a week. His and my talk is just friends
keeping up to date. At the wedding I was fairly up to date on most of the
bride's side of the family due to this small talk. The bride is the niece
of my friend, daughter of his sister. The sister also being a pretty close
friend of mine, though I rarely see her these days.
- Bill
Bill Leary
May 19, 2013, 8:36:40 AM5/19/13
to
"Ibmekon" wrote in message
news:u94hp89bjrtidls29...@4ax.com...
can't get a solid connection. After the woman gave me her name I
immediately understood why I'd retrieved the incorrect name. The wrong name
WAS connected to her, and prominently too. I'm guessing when retrieval on
"name" failed my brain picked the next most significant "name" connected
with the woman. And stubbornly refused to let go of it.
- Bill
news:u94hp89bjrtidls29...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:43:42 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>>"Dan Espen" wrote in message news:ichahzi...@home.home...
>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
>>>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>>> You doing this on purpose?
>>>
>>> First it's a "dog's breakfast", now some obscure (to me) Latin.
>>> Are you trying to overload my brain circuits?
>>> At my age I only have a little storage room left.
>>
>> I find it's the retrieval mechanism, not the storage capacity, that's
>> the issue.
>>
>> I went to a wedding today. Some people I haven't seen in years, and
>> didn't have much connection with even then, I remembered their names
>> instantly. The daughter of one of my best friends, a woman we discuss
>> at least every couple of weeks, I retrieved a name I *knew* wasn't hers
>> and couldn't get past it to remember her actual name.
>
> wrote:
>>"Dan Espen" wrote in message news:ichahzi...@home.home...
>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
>>>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>>> You doing this on purpose?
>>>
>>> First it's a "dog's breakfast", now some obscure (to me) Latin.
>>> Are you trying to overload my brain circuits?
>>> At my age I only have a little storage room left.
>>
>> I find it's the retrieval mechanism, not the storage capacity, that's
>> the issue.
>>
>> I went to a wedding today. Some people I haven't seen in years, and
>> didn't have much connection with even then, I remembered their names
>> instantly. The daughter of one of my best friends, a woman we discuss
>> at least every couple of weeks, I retrieved a name I *knew* wasn't hers
>> and couldn't get past it to remember her actual name.
>
> The other day I was making idle conversation and tried to remember the
> name of a footballer, currentlty injured, who plays for the Ireland team.
>
> No joy, so I described him as an Aston Villa player and defender - and
> was given the name Richard Dunne.
>
> What was odd was that the first thing that came to mind then was
> Richard Dunn the boxer from Yorkshire, who fought Muhammad Ali for the
> world heavyweight title in 1976.
>
> My brain clearly ran an SQL query of "Richard Dunn" AND "from
> Midlands" AND "footballer" - returning NULL.
> But leaving a set in the WORKING-STORAGE section of my memory.
It's often surprising what sorts of connections the brain makes when you
> name of a footballer, currentlty injured, who plays for the Ireland team.
>
> No joy, so I described him as an Aston Villa player and defender - and
> was given the name Richard Dunne.
>
> What was odd was that the first thing that came to mind then was
> Richard Dunn the boxer from Yorkshire, who fought Muhammad Ali for the
> world heavyweight title in 1976.
>
> My brain clearly ran an SQL query of "Richard Dunn" AND "from
> Midlands" AND "footballer" - returning NULL.
> But leaving a set in the WORKING-STORAGE section of my memory.
can't get a solid connection. After the woman gave me her name I
immediately understood why I'd retrieved the incorrect name. The wrong name
WAS connected to her, and prominently too. I'm guessing when retrieval on
"name" failed my brain picked the next most significant "name" connected
with the woman. And stubbornly refused to let go of it.
- Bill
jmfbahciv
May 19, 2013, 9:35:59 AM5/19/13
to
/BAH
Dan Espen
May 19, 2013, 10:09:47 AM5/19/13
to
makes it hard to find things.
The other day I was trying to explain who a certain right wing idiot was
and all I could come up with is the female idiot with the adam's apple.
I don't know why but 2 days later Ann Coulter popped up as the answer.
I wasn't consciously thinking about it. Apparently we have subroutines
running constantly trying to find things we've tried to recall.
I must have another subroutine running waiting until I meet the people I
was talking to at the time to explain who I was trying to tell them
about.
Hey, wait a minute, the subject line is "Here's the answer" and we're
sort of on computing. How did that happen?
--
Dan Espen
JimP.
May 19, 2013, 10:11:28 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:52:51 -0400, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
wrote:
I have been told over the years that it translates to 'who shall watch
the watchers ?'
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://dice.drivein-jim.net/ my dice collection
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009
wrote:
the watchers ?'
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://dice.drivein-jim.net/ my dice collection
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009
Shmuel Metz
May 18, 2013, 10:30:36 PM5/18/13
to
In <avo981...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/18/2013
at 01:01 PM, "Simon Brown" <s...@kigfr.com> said:
>But it does show that them actually voting does not
>make any difference to how viable the democracy is.
K3wl! Unfortunately it has nothing to do with what I wrote.
>But it does show that them actually voting does not
>make any difference to how viable the democracy is.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
May 19, 2013, 11:53:25 AM5/19/13
to
opportunity arises. It sometimes leaves a ghost in the form of a time
delayed interrupt that triggers soon after the meeting is over to provide
that essential "Oh damn I forgot to tell him/her/it ..." moment.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Dan Espen
May 19, 2013, 12:25:44 PM5/19/13
to
JimP. <pongb...@cableone.net> writes:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:52:51 -0400, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>>Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> In <ictxm2m...@home.home>, on 05/17/2013
>>> at 12:05 AM, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> said:
>>>
>>>>Isn't the trick to get only the well informed with good judgment and
>>>>pure motives out to vote?
>>>
>>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>>
>>You doing this on purpose?
>>
>>First it's a "dog's breakfast", now some obscure (to me) Latin.
>>Are you trying to overload my brain circuits?
>>At my age I only have a little storage room left.
>>
>>"Who will guard the guards".
>>
>>We don't need guards when we have people with pure motives.
>>
>>In fact the world will be perfect except for the monkeys flying out of
>>unmentionable places.
>
> I have been told over the years that it translates to 'who shall watch
> the watchers ?'
As with almost everything there is a Wikipedia page on the quote with
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:52:51 -0400, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>>Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> In <ictxm2m...@home.home>, on 05/17/2013
>>> at 12:05 AM, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> said:
>>>
>>>>Isn't the trick to get only the well informed with good judgment and
>>>>pure motives out to vote?
>>>
>>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>>
>>You doing this on purpose?
>>
>>First it's a "dog's breakfast", now some obscure (to me) Latin.
>>Are you trying to overload my brain circuits?
>>At my age I only have a little storage room left.
>>
>>"Who will guard the guards".
>>
>>We don't need guards when we have people with pure motives.
>>
>>In fact the world will be perfect except for the monkeys flying out of
>>unmentionable places.
>
> I have been told over the years that it translates to 'who shall watch
> the watchers ?'
a bunch of alternatives.
I just picked one.
--
Dan Espen
Dan Espen
May 19, 2013, 12:32:19 PM5/19/13
to
--
Dan Espen
JimP.
May 19, 2013, 3:27:11 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:25:44 -0400, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that is what i was told it meant for
many years, before the internet.
many years, before the internet.
Quadibloc
May 19, 2013, 5:03:20 PM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 1:27 pm, JimP. <pongbill...@cableone.net> wrote:
> I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that is what i was told it meant for
> many years, before the internet.
For the information of others, though, "custodes" does imply people
> I'm not arguing, I'm just saying that is what i was told it meant for
> many years, before the internet.
with coercive power exercising authority, rather than passive
observers.
John Savard
Dan Espen
May 19, 2013, 7:58:58 PM5/19/13
to
--
Dan Espen
Dan Espen
May 19, 2013, 8:01:28 PM5/19/13
to
guard than watchmen. But that doesn't mean much.
--
Dan Espen
Bill Leary
May 19, 2013, 10:51:54 PM5/19/13
to
"Dan Espen" wrote in message news:icvc6fg...@home.home...
> The other day I was trying to explain who a certain right wing idiot was
> and all I could come up with is the female idiot with the adam's apple.
>
> I don't know why but 2 days later Ann Coulter popped up as the answer.
> I wasn't consciously thinking about it. Apparently we have subroutines
> running constantly trying to find things we've tried to recall.
I've always thought so. I think they eventually "time out" and get deleted,
or maybe get put on hold. I know that, occasionally, thing I've had answers
pop up to questions I'd forgotten I was trying to find the answers to.
> I must have another subroutine running waiting until I meet the
> people I was talking to at the time to explain who I was trying to
> tell them about.
I don't seem to have that one. I'm just about as likely to forget to tell
them the next time I see them as I am to remember.
> Hey, wait a minute, the subject line is "Here's the answer" and
> we're sort of on computing. How did that happen?
I don't know, but they almost always do. I'm waiting with some curiosity to
see how the religion thread is going to get back to computers.
- Bill
> "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com> writes:
>> I find it's the retrieval mechanism, not the storage capacity, that's
>> the issue.
>>
>> I went to a wedding today. Some people I haven't seen in years, and
>> didn't have much connection with even then, I remembered their names
>> instantly. The daughter of one of my best friends, a woman we discuss
>> at least every couple of weeks, I retrieved a name I *knew* wasn't
>> hers and couldn't get past it to remember her actual name.
>
> Yep, but who knows, it could be it's so much crap in there that
> makes it hard to find things.
That's a possibility.
>> I find it's the retrieval mechanism, not the storage capacity, that's
>> the issue.
>>
>> I went to a wedding today. Some people I haven't seen in years, and
>> didn't have much connection with even then, I remembered their names
>> instantly. The daughter of one of my best friends, a woman we discuss
>> at least every couple of weeks, I retrieved a name I *knew* wasn't
>> hers and couldn't get past it to remember her actual name.
>
> Yep, but who knows, it could be it's so much crap in there that
> makes it hard to find things.
> The other day I was trying to explain who a certain right wing idiot was
> and all I could come up with is the female idiot with the adam's apple.
>
> I don't know why but 2 days later Ann Coulter popped up as the answer.
> I wasn't consciously thinking about it. Apparently we have subroutines
> running constantly trying to find things we've tried to recall.
or maybe get put on hold. I know that, occasionally, thing I've had answers
pop up to questions I'd forgotten I was trying to find the answers to.
> I must have another subroutine running waiting until I meet the
> people I was talking to at the time to explain who I was trying to
> tell them about.
them the next time I see them as I am to remember.
> Hey, wait a minute, the subject line is "Here's the answer" and
> we're sort of on computing. How did that happen?
see how the religion thread is going to get back to computers.
- Bill
Dan Espen
May 19, 2013, 11:37:20 PM5/19/13
to
They knew who Ann was, just didn't know about the Adams Apple or Ann's
famous comment about Jews being imperfect Christians.
--
Dan Espen
Bernd Felsche
May 20, 2013, 3:13:48 AM5/20/13
to
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
above", which, if in the majority would result in a new poll with
none of the previous candidates eligible and all of them losing
their "deposit".
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Somewhere in Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken
>spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid (Seymour J.) writes:
>> ma...@mail.com said:
>>> The party system is the greatest threat to democracy.
>> Second greatest threat; the greatest threat is the lack of a public
>> willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote. The voter
>> turnout figures are appallingly low.
>"Don't vote, it just encourages them."
>That encapsulates the attitude of many potential voters.
>There is such a sense of despair these days that many people
>feel (rightly or wrongly) that it doesn't matter which set of
>scoundrels get in because they're all scoundrels anyway.
>"Who could I possibly vote for?" such people ask me. "Nobody,"
>I reply, "but there's always someone you can vote against." You
>can no longer vote for the one who will benefit you the most, so
>you vote for the one who will hurt you the least. Or, in extreme
>cases, you hold your nose and vote for the one most likely to stop
>the one who could hurt you really badly.
>This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
>so much that there must be some value in it.
A true democracy would allow for voters selecting "none of the
>> ma...@mail.com said:
>>> The party system is the greatest threat to democracy.
>> Second greatest threat; the greatest threat is the lack of a public
>> willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote. The voter
>> turnout figures are appallingly low.
>"Don't vote, it just encourages them."
>That encapsulates the attitude of many potential voters.
>There is such a sense of despair these days that many people
>feel (rightly or wrongly) that it doesn't matter which set of
>scoundrels get in because they're all scoundrels anyway.
>"Who could I possibly vote for?" such people ask me. "Nobody,"
>I reply, "but there's always someone you can vote against." You
>can no longer vote for the one who will benefit you the most, so
>you vote for the one who will hurt you the least. Or, in extreme
>cases, you hold your nose and vote for the one most likely to stop
>the one who could hurt you really badly.
>This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
>so much that there must be some value in it.
above", which, if in the majority would result in a new poll with
none of the previous candidates eligible and all of them losing
their "deposit".
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Somewhere in Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken
Nick Spalding
May 20, 2013, 3:54:02 AM5/20/13
to
Dan Espen wrote, in <icvc6ef...@home.home>
on Sun, 19 May 2013 20:01:28 -0400:
Kennedy's Revised Latin Primer has it as "guardian".
--
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 19 May 2013 20:01:28 -0400:
--
Nick Spalding
Shmuel Metz
May 20, 2013, 4:03:44 AM5/20/13
to
In <ichahzi...@home.home>, on 05/18/2013
correct[1] data after the fact. To add insult to injury, while I
sometimes fail to recall things that are well known to me, I sometimes
recall things from long ago that I would just as soon forget, e.g.,
650 opcodes.
[1] You're the only one to suffer from esprit l'escalier and
there's a flock of pigs flying outside my window.
at 10:52 PM, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> said:
>At my age I only have a little storage room left.
Maybe. More likely you're retrieving the wrong data, or retrieving the
>At my age I only have a little storage room left.
correct[1] data after the fact. To add insult to injury, while I
sometimes fail to recall things that are well known to me, I sometimes
recall things from long ago that I would just as soon forget, e.g.,
650 opcodes.
[1] You're the only one to suffer from esprit l'escalier and
there's a flock of pigs flying outside my window.
Simon Brown
May 20, 2013, 6:07:09 AM5/20/13
to
"Bernd Felsche" <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:c2vo6ax...@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid (Seymour J.) writes:
>>> ma...@mail.com said:
>
>>>> The party system is the greatest threat to democracy.
>
>>> Second greatest threat; the greatest threat is the lack of a public
>>> willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote. The voter
>>> turnout figures are appallingly low.
>
>>"Don't vote, it just encourages them."
>
>>That encapsulates the attitude of many potential voters.
>>There is such a sense of despair these days that many people
>>feel (rightly or wrongly) that it doesn't matter which set of
>>scoundrels get in because they're all scoundrels anyway.
>
>>"Who could I possibly vote for?" such people ask me. "Nobody,"
>>I reply, "but there's always someone you can vote against." You
>>can no longer vote for the one who will benefit you the most, so
>>you vote for the one who will hurt you the least. Or, in extreme
>>cases, you hold your nose and vote for the one most likely to stop
>>the one who could hurt you really badly.
>
>>This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
>>so much that there must be some value in it.
> A true democracy would allow for voters selecting "none of the above",
They all do, by not voting for anyone on the ballot paper.
>>spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid (Seymour J.) writes:
>>> ma...@mail.com said:
>
>>>> The party system is the greatest threat to democracy.
>
>>> Second greatest threat; the greatest threat is the lack of a public
>>> willing to learn about the issues, then get out and vote. The voter
>>> turnout figures are appallingly low.
>
>>"Don't vote, it just encourages them."
>
>>That encapsulates the attitude of many potential voters.
>>There is such a sense of despair these days that many people
>>feel (rightly or wrongly) that it doesn't matter which set of
>>scoundrels get in because they're all scoundrels anyway.
>
>>"Who could I possibly vote for?" such people ask me. "Nobody,"
>>I reply, "but there's always someone you can vote against." You
>>can no longer vote for the one who will benefit you the most, so
>>you vote for the one who will hurt you the least. Or, in extreme
>>cases, you hold your nose and vote for the one most likely to stop
>>the one who could hurt you really badly.
>
>>This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
>>so much that there must be some value in it.
> A true democracy would allow for voters selecting "none of the above",
> which, if in the majority
> would result in a new poll with none of the previous
> candidates eligible and all of them losing their "deposit".
a majority not be allowed to stand the new poll ?
That's nothing like democratic.
Walter Bushell
May 20, 2013, 7:39:15 AM5/20/13
to
In article <c2vo6ax...@innovative.iinet.net.au>,
And any candidate in such an election being bared from any government
position of trust for 10 years. No dog catcher, no civil service, no
elected position and ineligible to register as a lobbyist. (Lobbying
without such registration is illegal.)
Does this cover the basis.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
position of trust for 10 years. No dog catcher, no civil service, no
elected position and ineligible to register as a lobbyist. (Lobbying
without such registration is illegal.)
Does this cover the basis.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 20, 2013, 7:40:19 AM5/20/13
to
of elections" is to allow either one positive or one negative vote.
Each candidate gets their plus votes less their negative votes to come
to a total.
Getting people out to vote directly *against* candidates would be both
easy and potentially hilarious. I do wonder how many constituencies
would return a positive total for *any* candidate...
(On the down side, it would induce parties to fund frighteningly
insane candidates as independents or minor party candidates to act as
"vote sacrifices", in ordear that their own party candidate wouldn't
get negged so hard no matter how useless they are. But still.)
Cheers - Jaimie
--
If ignorance is bliss, why are so many people unhappy?
Walter Bushell
May 20, 2013, 7:45:30 AM5/20/13
to
In article <5199d8e0$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,
> esprit l'escalier
mind the stairs?
But Peter, Paul & Mary had a song about this "Norman Normal".
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid>
wrote:
> esprit l'escalier
mind the stairs?
But Peter, Paul & Mary had a song about this "Norman Normal".
Ibmekon
May 20, 2013, 8:34:02 AM5/20/13
to
Just waited 3 days to remember a word meaning "absolutely correct", as
in "its a Bramah of a day".
The word relates to a type of lock - whereby key and lock and made in
tandem. I learnt it as a child.
Carl Goldsworthy
He is best known for having invented the hydraulic press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bramah
Andrew Swallow
May 20, 2013, 9:49:26 AM5/20/13
to
On 20/05/2013 12:39, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <c2vo6ax...@innovative.iinet.net.au>,
{snip}
>>
>> A true democracy would allow for voters selecting "none of the
>> above", which, if in the majority would result in a new poll with
>> none of the previous candidates eligible and all of them losing
>> their "deposit".
>
> And any candidate in such an election being bared from any government
> position of trust for 10 years. No dog catcher, no civil service, no
> elected position and ineligible to register as a lobbyist. (Lobbying
> without such registration is illegal.)
>
> Does this cover the basis.
>
10 years is too long. 6 months will do.
The candidates can learn learn from the experience. Also it could
simply be the wrong time for the policy. This year we cure inflation,
in 2 years time we need to hire more doctors.
Andrew Swallow
> In article <c2vo6ax...@innovative.iinet.net.au>,
{snip}
>>
>> A true democracy would allow for voters selecting "none of the
>> above", which, if in the majority would result in a new poll with
>> none of the previous candidates eligible and all of them losing
>> their "deposit".
>
> And any candidate in such an election being bared from any government
> position of trust for 10 years. No dog catcher, no civil service, no
> elected position and ineligible to register as a lobbyist. (Lobbying
> without such registration is illegal.)
>
> Does this cover the basis.
>
The candidates can learn learn from the experience. Also it could
simply be the wrong time for the policy. This year we cure inflation,
in 2 years time we need to hire more doctors.
Andrew Swallow
Simon Brown
May 20, 2013, 2:55:11 PM5/20/13
to
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-CB6A4C....@news.panix.com...
That's not necessarily going to produce a viable government.
JimP.
May 20, 2013, 4:05:48 PM5/20/13
to
Walter Bushell
May 20, 2013, 4:55:57 PM5/20/13
to
In article <1457.920T1...@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
voting. How can they be against what put them in office?
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
> so much that there must be some value in it.
But why? Every politician owes their term in office to strategic
> This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
> so much that there must be some value in it.
voting. How can they be against what put them in office?
Simon Brown
May 20, 2013, 6:12:08 PM5/20/13
to
news:proto-B702F9....@news.panix.com...
> How can they be against what put them in office?
They aren't.
> In article <1457.920T1...@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
>> so much that there must be some value in it.
>
> But why? Every politician owes their term in office to strategic voting.
Most of them do not.
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
>> so much that there must be some value in it.
>
> But why? Every politician owes their term in office to strategic voting.
> How can they be against what put them in office?
Peter Flass
May 20, 2013, 7:14:44 PM5/20/13
to
--
Pete
Peter Flass
May 20, 2013, 7:18:18 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/2013 7:40 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> their "deposit".
>
> My own suggestion towards "things to try and improve the woeful state
> of elections" is to allow either one positive or one negative vote.
> Each candidate gets their plus votes less their negative votes to come
> to a total.
>
> Getting people out to vote directly *against* candidates would be both
> easy and potentially hilarious. I do wonder how many constituencies
> would return a positive total for *any* candidate...
I think most voters actually vote *against* someone rather than *for*
>> their "deposit".
>
> My own suggestion towards "things to try and improve the woeful state
> of elections" is to allow either one positive or one negative vote.
> Each candidate gets their plus votes less their negative votes to come
> to a total.
>
> Getting people out to vote directly *against* candidates would be both
> easy and potentially hilarious. I do wonder how many constituencies
> would return a positive total for *any* candidate...
his opponent.
--
Pete
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 20, 2013, 8:22:57 PM5/20/13
to
codifying it so you could actually count the *against* votes would be
awfully interesting.
And would perhaps stop the weasels who get in with 40% of 30% of the
potential total vote spouting out that they "have a mandate from the
people". Perhaps. And perhaps not, given the egos involved.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Anyone who has had a bull by the tail knows five or six
more things than someone who hasn't. -- Mark Twain
Simon Brown
May 20, 2013, 8:50:00 PM5/20/13
to
"Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kneae1$d1p$4...@dont-email.me...
Jaimie Vandenbergh
May 20, 2013, 9:46:16 PM5/20/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:50:00 +1000, "Simon Brown" <s...@kigfr.com>
wrote:
Very much depends on your local candidates, I'd have thought. I've
always been "lucky" enough to have lived in very safe seats, so my
vote hardly counted anyway. But how safe can a seat actually be, when
there are about 60% of potential voters not showing their hand?
A "none of the above" or "negative vote" plus mandatory voting would
be fun.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"I have an asteroid named after me. Isaac Asimov's got one too.
It's smaller and more eccentric." -- Arthur C. Clarke
wrote:
always been "lucky" enough to have lived in very safe seats, so my
vote hardly counted anyway. But how safe can a seat actually be, when
there are about 60% of potential voters not showing their hand?
A "none of the above" or "negative vote" plus mandatory voting would
be fun.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"I have an asteroid named after me. Isaac Asimov's got one too.
It's smaller and more eccentric." -- Arthur C. Clarke
Simon Brown
May 20, 2013, 10:38:38 PM5/20/13
to
"Jaimie Vandenbergh" <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in message
news:oaklp85dbn0o3lreg...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:50:00 +1000, "Simon Brown" <s...@kigfr.com>
> wrote:
>>"Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:kneae1$d1p$4...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 5/20/2013 7:40 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My own suggestion towards "things to try and improve the woeful state
>>>> of elections" is to allow either one positive or one negative vote.
>>>> Each candidate gets their plus votes less their negative votes to come
>>>> to a total.
>>>>
>>>> Getting people out to vote directly *against* candidates would be both
>>>> easy and potentially hilarious. I do wonder how many constituencies
>>>> would return a positive total for *any* candidate...
>>>
>>> I think most voters actually vote *against* someone rather than *for*
>>> his
>>> opponent.
>>
>>I don't. Some do, but I doubt that it's anything like most voters.
>
> Very much depends on your local candidates, I'd have thought.
Yes, but I can't think of any that are currently so corrupt
> wrote:
>>"Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:kneae1$d1p$4...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 5/20/2013 7:40 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My own suggestion towards "things to try and improve the woeful state
>>>> of elections" is to allow either one positive or one negative vote.
>>>> Each candidate gets their plus votes less their negative votes to come
>>>> to a total.
>>>>
>>>> Getting people out to vote directly *against* candidates would be both
>>>> easy and potentially hilarious. I do wonder how many constituencies
>>>> would return a positive total for *any* candidate...
>>>
>>> I think most voters actually vote *against* someone rather than *for*
>>> his
>>> opponent.
>>
>>I don't. Some do, but I doubt that it's anything like most voters.
>
> Very much depends on your local candidates, I'd have thought.
that I would expect to see most voters voting that way.
> I've always been "lucky" enough to have lived in
> very safe seats, so my vote hardly counted anyway.
> But how safe can a seat actually be, when there are
> about 60% of potential voters not showing their hand?
difficult to actually change that sort of voting behaviour.
I would expect to only see much change on that with the most
dramatic change in situation like say the great depression.
> A "none of the above" or "negative vote"
> plus mandatory voting would be fun.
mandatory voting, you can just refuse to vote for
any of the candidates on the ballot paper.
You never see more than a trivial percentage do that.
Bill Leary
May 20, 2013, 11:37:35 PM5/20/13
to
"Peter Flass" wrote in message news:knea7d$d1p$3...@dont-email.me...
right now.
- Bill
> On 5/19/2013 10:51 PM, Bill Leary wrote:
>> "Dan Espen" wrote in message news:icvc6fg...@home.home...
>>> ((..omitted..))
>> "Dan Espen" wrote in message news:icvc6fg...@home.home...
>>> Hey, wait a minute, the subject line is "Here's the answer" and
>>> we're sort of on computing. How did that happen?
>>
>> I don't know, but they almost always do. I'm waiting with some
>> curiosity to see how the religion thread is going to get back to
>> computers.
>
> "The Nine Billion Names of God?"
That would do it, but I don't see it on the horizon for the conversation
>>> we're sort of on computing. How did that happen?
>>
>> I don't know, but they almost always do. I'm waiting with some
>> curiosity to see how the religion thread is going to get back to
>> computers.
>
> "The Nine Billion Names of God?"
right now.
- Bill
Gene Wirchenko
May 21, 2013, 1:16:16 AM5/21/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:35:16 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
wrote:
>Sorry to reply to my own message. The cat on the desk distracted me and I
>hit "send" before I finished the message.
>
>What I meant to add was that, even if "con-men" or "Congress" is the correct
>word, it just doesn't seem strong enough.
>
>Whatever the correct word is for this behavior, it should be one you can't
>use in polite company. It should be obscene.
If we need such a word, it ought to be one that decent people can
use. Decent people are the sort who need the word.
>But then, I know a few people who'd say that the word "Congress" *IS*
>obscene.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
>Sorry to reply to my own message. The cat on the desk distracted me and I
>hit "send" before I finished the message.
>
>What I meant to add was that, even if "con-men" or "Congress" is the correct
>word, it just doesn't seem strong enough.
>
>Whatever the correct word is for this behavior, it should be one you can't
>use in polite company. It should be obscene.
If we need such a word, it ought to be one that decent people can
use. Decent people are the sort who need the word.
>But then, I know a few people who'd say that the word "Congress" *IS*
>obscene.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
May 21, 2013, 1:29:04 AM5/21/13
to
On 17 May 13 07:47:23 -0800, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
[snip]
>"Who could I possibly vote for?" such people ask me. "Nobody,"
>I reply, "but there's always someone you can vote against." You
>can no longer vote for the one who will benefit you the most, so
>you vote for the one who will hurt you the least. Or, in extreme
>cases, you hold your nose and vote for the one most likely to stop
>the one who could hurt you really badly.
>
candidate in the B.C. provincial election last week. I definitely did
not vote for the NDP as much as against the Liberals.
Unfortunately, the Liberals got in with a substantial majority.
According to CBC, the Liberals got 50 (out of 85 seats) with 44.40% of
the vote. The NDP got 33 seats with 39.49% of the vote.
That disparity of seats suggests that the NDP placed a close
second in a lot of ridings.
I think that first-past-the-post is not a very good method.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
[snip]
>"Who could I possibly vote for?" such people ask me. "Nobody,"
>I reply, "but there's always someone you can vote against." You
>can no longer vote for the one who will benefit you the most, so
>you vote for the one who will hurt you the least. Or, in extreme
>cases, you hold your nose and vote for the one most likely to stop
>the one who could hurt you really badly.
>
>This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
>so much that there must be some value in it.
I wish it worked a bit better. I voted for my riding's NDP
>so much that there must be some value in it.
candidate in the B.C. provincial election last week. I definitely did
not vote for the NDP as much as against the Liberals.
Unfortunately, the Liberals got in with a substantial majority.
According to CBC, the Liberals got 50 (out of 85 seats) with 44.40% of
the vote. The NDP got 33 seats with 39.49% of the vote.
That disparity of seats suggests that the NDP placed a close
second in a lot of ridings.
I think that first-past-the-post is not a very good method.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
May 21, 2013, 1:40:16 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 07:39:15 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:
>In article <c2vo6ax...@innovative.iinet.net.au>,
> Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
[snip]
>> A true democracy would allow for voters selecting "none of the
>> above", which, if in the majority would result in a new poll with
>> none of the previous candidates eligible and all of them losing
>> their "deposit".
At least while I was attending (1978-1979), the Simon Fraser
Student Society (at Simon Fraser University) had a rule that if there
was only one candidate for a position, the candidate did not get the
position by acclamation. Instead, a vote no campaign could be
mounted. Voting would be for the candidate or not for the candidate.
If the no votes won, the position would be vacant for that term.
>And any candidate in such an election being bared from any government
>position of trust for 10 years. No dog catcher, no civil service, no
>elected position and ineligible to register as a lobbyist. (Lobbying
>without such registration is illegal.)
Consider an election where there are three candidates (A, B, and
C) plus none of the above.
In scenario 1, the results are A 24%, B 24%, C 24%, and none of
the above 28%.
In scenario 2, the results are A 60%, B 18%, C 18%, and none of
the above 4%.
By what you propose above, A, B, and C of scenario 1 would get
penalised, but B and C of scenario 2 would not though they have fewer
votes. If you extend the penalising to hit candidates in scenario 2,
then you will make it very difficult for small parties.
>Does this cover the basis.
I do not think that it would work.
There is a very big difference between not being trusted and not
being trustworthy.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
>In article <c2vo6ax...@innovative.iinet.net.au>,
> Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> A true democracy would allow for voters selecting "none of the
>> above", which, if in the majority would result in a new poll with
>> none of the previous candidates eligible and all of them losing
>> their "deposit".
Student Society (at Simon Fraser University) had a rule that if there
was only one candidate for a position, the candidate did not get the
position by acclamation. Instead, a vote no campaign could be
mounted. Voting would be for the candidate or not for the candidate.
If the no votes won, the position would be vacant for that term.
>And any candidate in such an election being bared from any government
>position of trust for 10 years. No dog catcher, no civil service, no
>elected position and ineligible to register as a lobbyist. (Lobbying
>without such registration is illegal.)
C) plus none of the above.
In scenario 1, the results are A 24%, B 24%, C 24%, and none of
the above 28%.
In scenario 2, the results are A 60%, B 18%, C 18%, and none of
the above 4%.
By what you propose above, A, B, and C of scenario 1 would get
penalised, but B and C of scenario 2 would not though they have fewer
votes. If you extend the penalising to hit candidates in scenario 2,
then you will make it very difficult for small parties.
>Does this cover the basis.
There is a very big difference between not being trusted and not
being trustworthy.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Simon Brown
May 21, 2013, 3:07:14 AM5/21/13
to
"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:s21mp8loha9hr6cl2...@4ax.com...
The main downside with proportional representation is
that you don't normally get a simple majority and so the
government has to be a coalition of disparate parties and
that often isnt very stable at all.
Shmuel Metz
May 21, 2013, 5:42:19 AM5/21/13
to
In <c2vo6ax...@innovative.iinet.net.au>, on 05/20/2013
at 03:13 PM, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> said:
>A true democracy would allow for voters selecting "none of the
>above", which, if in the majority would result in a new poll with
>none of the previous candidates eligible and all of them losing their
>"deposit".
You are me!
>A true democracy would allow for voters selecting "none of the
>above", which, if in the majority would result in a new poll with
>none of the previous candidates eligible and all of them losing their
>"deposit".
Peter Flass
May 21, 2013, 8:31:04 AM5/21/13
to
On 5/20/2013 8:22 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 19:18:18 -0400, Peter Flass
> <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2013 7:40 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>>> their "deposit".
>>>
>>> My own suggestion towards "things to try and improve the woeful state
>>> of elections" is to allow either one positive or one negative vote.
>>> Each candidate gets their plus votes less their negative votes to come
>>> to a total.
>>>
>>> Getting people out to vote directly *against* candidates would be both
>>> easy and potentially hilarious. I do wonder how many constituencies
>>> would return a positive total for *any* candidate...
>>
>> I think most voters actually vote *against* someone rather than *for*
>> his opponent.
>
> I know I have been in most elections during the last 20 years. But
> codifying it so you could actually count the *against* votes would be
> awfully interesting.
>
> And would perhaps stop the weasels who get in with 40% of 30% of the
> potential total vote spouting out that they "have a mandate from the
> people". Perhaps. And perhaps not, given the egos involved.
>
I don't count 51% as a mandate for anything, much less 40%. To claim a
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 19:18:18 -0400, Peter Flass
> <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2013 7:40 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>>> their "deposit".
>>>
>>> My own suggestion towards "things to try and improve the woeful state
>>> of elections" is to allow either one positive or one negative vote.
>>> Each candidate gets their plus votes less their negative votes to come
>>> to a total.
>>>
>>> Getting people out to vote directly *against* candidates would be both
>>> easy and potentially hilarious. I do wonder how many constituencies
>>> would return a positive total for *any* candidate...
>>
>> I think most voters actually vote *against* someone rather than *for*
>> his opponent.
>
> I know I have been in most elections during the last 20 years. But
> codifying it so you could actually count the *against* votes would be
> awfully interesting.
>
> And would perhaps stop the weasels who get in with 40% of 30% of the
> potential total vote spouting out that they "have a mandate from the
> people". Perhaps. And perhaps not, given the egos involved.
>
mandate IMHO you'd have to get somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% -
anything else is "squeaking in."
--
Pete
Charlie Gibbs
May 21, 2013, 12:33:29 PM5/21/13
to
In article <b00kq2...@mid.individual.net>, s...@kigfr.com
>> Unfortunately, the Liberals got in with a substantial majority.
>> According to CBC, the Liberals got 50 (out of 85 seats) with 44.40%
>> of the vote. The NDP got 33 seats with 39.49% of the vote.
>>
>> That disparity of seats suggests that the NDP placed a close
>> second in a lot of ridings.
>>
>> I think that first-past-the-post is not a very good method.
Neither do I. But the politicians who would have to approve a
change know how to game the existing system too well to want to
give it up.
> Trouble is that all the alternatives are not very good either.
>
> The main downside with proportional representation is
> that you don't normally get a simple majority and so the
> government has to be a coalition of disparate parties and
> that often isnt very stable at all.
You make that sound like a bad thing. I'd prefer a government
that flounders aimlessly over one that drives us full speed
toward destruction.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
(Simon Brown) writes:
> "Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:s21mp8loha9hr6cl2...@4ax.com...
>
>> On 17 May 13 07:47:23 -0800, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> "Who could I possibly vote for?" such people ask me. "Nobody,"
>>> I reply, "but there's always someone you can vote against." You
>>> can no longer vote for the one who will benefit you the most, so
>>> you vote for the one who will hurt you the least. Or, in extreme
>>> cases, you hold your nose and vote for the one most likely to stop
>>> the one who could hurt you really badly.
>>>
>>> This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
>>> so much that there must be some value in it.
>>
>> I wish it worked a bit better. I voted for my riding's NDP
>> candidate in the B.C. provincial election last week. I definitely
>> did not vote for the NDP as much as against the Liberals.
You and me both.
> "Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:s21mp8loha9hr6cl2...@4ax.com...
>
>> On 17 May 13 07:47:23 -0800, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> "Who could I possibly vote for?" such people ask me. "Nobody,"
>>> I reply, "but there's always someone you can vote against." You
>>> can no longer vote for the one who will benefit you the most, so
>>> you vote for the one who will hurt you the least. Or, in extreme
>>> cases, you hold your nose and vote for the one most likely to stop
>>> the one who could hurt you really badly.
>>>
>>> This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
>>> so much that there must be some value in it.
>>
>> I wish it worked a bit better. I voted for my riding's NDP
>> candidate in the B.C. provincial election last week. I definitely
>> did not vote for the NDP as much as against the Liberals.
>> Unfortunately, the Liberals got in with a substantial majority.
>> According to CBC, the Liberals got 50 (out of 85 seats) with 44.40%
>> of the vote. The NDP got 33 seats with 39.49% of the vote.
>>
>> That disparity of seats suggests that the NDP placed a close
>> second in a lot of ridings.
>>
>> I think that first-past-the-post is not a very good method.
change know how to game the existing system too well to want to
give it up.
> Trouble is that all the alternatives are not very good either.
>
> The main downside with proportional representation is
> that you don't normally get a simple majority and so the
> government has to be a coalition of disparate parties and
> that often isnt very stable at all.
that flounders aimlessly over one that drives us full speed
toward destruction.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Charlie Gibbs
May 21, 2013, 12:25:03 PM5/21/13
to
In article <knfosu$ls5$2...@dont-email.me>, Peter...@Yahoo.com
To _have_ a mandate you'd need 60%. You can "claim" a mandate with
whatever percentage you choose - and most politicians do. (Our
current prime minister's "mandate" is 40% of 60% of eligible voters,
i.e. one eligible voter in four actually cast a ballot for him.)
whatever percentage you choose - and most politicians do. (Our
current prime minister's "mandate" is 40% of 60% of eligible voters,
i.e. one eligible voter in four actually cast a ballot for him.)
Charlie Gibbs
May 21, 2013, 12:11:50 PM5/21/13
to
In article <proto-B702F9....@news.panix.com>, pr...@panix.com
to get what they want, as opposed to the strategies used by
politicians against the voters.
(Walter Bushell) writes:
> In article <1457.920T1...@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
>> so much that there must be some value in it.
>
> But why? Every politician owes their term in office to strategic
> voting. How can they be against what put them in office?
By "strategic voting" I'm referring to strategies used by voters
> In article <1457.920T1...@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> This is what politicians call "strategic voting" - and they hate it
>> so much that there must be some value in it.
>
> But why? Every politician owes their term in office to strategic
> voting. How can they be against what put them in office?
to get what they want, as opposed to the strategies used by
politicians against the voters.
Simon Brown
May 21, 2013, 1:24:40 PM5/21/13
to
"Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
doesn't have a lot of difference between the two majors policy wise.
You get what is considered to be a landslide in the sense that one
side gets a lot more elected politicians than the other with much
smaller percentages of the total vote than 60% and that is by
definition a mandate with a landslide that produces that result
in elected politician's number.
Simon Brown
May 21, 2013, 1:53:12 PM5/21/13
to
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
news:2219.924T1...@kltpzyxm.invalid...
> I'd prefer a government that flounders aimlessly over
> one that drives us full speed toward destruction.
towards a viable outcome, as we have just seen with
the US system where we managed to avoid another
great depression or worse quite effectively.
Shmuel Metz
May 21, 2013, 9:19:23 AM5/21/13
to
In <b00kq2...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/21/2013
at 05:07 PM, "Simon Brown" <s...@kigfr.com> said:
>The main downside with proportional representation is
>that you don't normally get a simple majority and so the government
>has to be a coalition of disparate parties and that often isnt very
>stable at all.
That's also the main upside.
>The main downside with proportional representation is
>that you don't normally get a simple majority and so the government
>has to be a coalition of disparate parties and that often isnt very
>stable at all.
Shmuel Metz
May 21, 2013, 9:18:08 AM5/21/13
to
In <8i1mp89esh4rjdhc3...@4ax.com>, on 05/20/2013
>If you extend the penalising to hit candidates in scenario 2,
Why would you do that? Each got more votes than "none of the above".
There might be a case for extending it to scenario 3: A 60%, B 12%, C
12% and none of the above 16%, although I would prefer to require a
plurality before "none of the above" has an effect. I might also
prefer an option as to whether "none of the above" is to apply only to
new polls for the current election or also to future polls for some
significant period of time.
The Sheckley solution might be too extreme.
at 10:40 PM, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> said:
>Consider an election where there are three candidates (A, B, and C)
>plus none of the above.
> In scenario 1, the results are A 24%, B 24%, C 24%, and none of
>the above 28%.
> In scenario 2, the results are A 60%, B 18%, C 18%, and none of
>the above 4%.
> By what you propose above, A, B, and C of scenario 1 would get
>penalised, but B and C of scenario 2 would not though they have fewer
>votes.
Of course.
>Consider an election where there are three candidates (A, B, and C)
>plus none of the above.
> In scenario 1, the results are A 24%, B 24%, C 24%, and none of
>the above 28%.
> In scenario 2, the results are A 60%, B 18%, C 18%, and none of
>the above 4%.
> By what you propose above, A, B, and C of scenario 1 would get
>penalised, but B and C of scenario 2 would not though they have fewer
>votes.
>If you extend the penalising to hit candidates in scenario 2,
There might be a case for extending it to scenario 3: A 60%, B 12%, C
12% and none of the above 16%, although I would prefer to require a
plurality before "none of the above" has an effect. I might also
prefer an option as to whether "none of the above" is to apply only to
new polls for the current election or also to future polls for some
significant period of time.
The Sheckley solution might be too extreme.
Shmuel Metz
May 21, 2013, 9:05:39 AM5/21/13
to
In <b0052b...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/21/2013
different from a binding "none of the above" option.
>You never see more than a trivial percentage do that.
Change the law so that it affects the outcome and *then* look at the
numbers.
at 12:38 PM, "Simon Brown" <s...@kigfr.com> said:
>There is that in some places. In those that do have
>mandatory voting, you can just refuse to vote for
>any of the candidates on the ballot paper.
Unless those blank ballors have an effect on the outcome, it's very
>There is that in some places. In those that do have
>mandatory voting, you can just refuse to vote for
>any of the candidates on the ballot paper.
different from a binding "none of the above" option.
>You never see more than a trivial percentage do that.
numbers.
Shmuel Metz
May 21, 2013, 5:59:52 AM5/21/13
to
In <proto-22CDA9....@news.panix.com>, on 05/20/2013
at 07:45 AM, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> said:
>In article <5199d8e0$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,
>> esprit l'escalier
>mind the stairs?
Spirit of the stairs, referring to thinking of what you should have
said only when you're on the stairs, leaving. It's a well know
phenomenon that illustrates the difference between data and easy
access to them.
at 07:45 AM, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> said:
>In article <5199d8e0$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid>
> wrote:
>> esprit l'escalier
>mind the stairs?
Spirit of the stairs, referring to thinking of what you should have
said only when you're on the stairs, leaving. It's a well know
phenomenon that illustrates the difference between data and easy
access to them.
Shmuel Metz
May 21, 2013, 5:50:58 AM5/21/13
to
In <avuav4...@mid.individual.net>, on 05/20/2013
Not even close. A failure to appear might be due to, e.g., apathy,
while voting "none of the above" is a strong indication of concern.
>> which, if in the majority
>It never is.
You know that how?
>> would result in a new poll with none of the previous
>> candidates eligible and all of them losing their "deposit".
>Why should those candidates who did not get
>a majority not be allowed to stand the new poll ?
They don't lose their chance for not getting a majority; they lose
there chance because they didn't get as many votes as "none of the
above".
>That's nothing like democratic.
How is giving the voters what they explicitly asked for not
democratic?
at 08:07 PM, "Simon Brown" <s...@kigfr.com> said:
>> A true democracy would allow for voters selecting "none of the above",
>They all do, by not voting for anyone on the ballot paper.
>> A true democracy would allow for voters selecting "none of the above",
Not even close. A failure to appear might be due to, e.g., apathy,
while voting "none of the above" is a strong indication of concern.
>> which, if in the majority
You know that how?
>> would result in a new poll with none of the previous
>> candidates eligible and all of them losing their "deposit".
>a majority not be allowed to stand the new poll ?
They don't lose their chance for not getting a majority; they lose
there chance because they didn't get as many votes as "none of the
above".
>That's nothing like democratic.
How is giving the voters what they explicitly asked for not
democratic?
Quadibloc
May 21, 2013, 3:13:57 PM5/21/13
to
On May 12, 8:35 am, "Bill Leary" <Bill_Le...@msn.com> wrote:
> But then, I know a few people who'd say that the word "Congress" *IS*
> obscene.
One of its meanings _is_ synonymous with 'intercourse'.
> But then, I know a few people who'd say that the word "Congress" *IS*
> obscene.
John Savard
Rod Speed
May 21, 2013, 4:00:16 PM5/21/13
to
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:8d8ed065-ec85-48e6...@be10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...
Patrick Scheible
May 21, 2013, 4:01:48 PM5/21/13
to
floundering aimlessly.
-- Patrick
Bill Leary
May 21, 2013, 5:10:11 PM5/21/13
to
"Patrick Scheible" wrote in message news:86zjvoc...@chai.my.domain...
earlier is usually driving us full speed toward destruction.
- Bill
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>> You make that sound like a bad thing. I'd prefer a government
>> that flounders aimlessly over one that drives us full speed
>> toward destruction.
>
> Then you would love the U.S. government. Congress is really
> good at floundering aimlessly.
The problem is, that while they're floundering aimlessly something they did
>> You make that sound like a bad thing. I'd prefer a government
>> that flounders aimlessly over one that drives us full speed
>> toward destruction.
>
> Then you would love the U.S. government. Congress is really
> good at floundering aimlessly.
earlier is usually driving us full speed toward destruction.
- Bill
Simon Brown
May 21, 2013, 5:27:57 PM5/21/13
to
"Patrick Scheible" <k...@zipcon.net> wrote in message
news:86zjvoc...@chai.my.domain...
Simon Brown
May 21, 2013, 5:34:13 PM5/21/13
to
"Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ULSdnZd865krfwbM...@giganews.com...
The system handled those fine.
JimP.
May 21, 2013, 6:07:01 PM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:37:35 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com>
wrote:
I've read it, interesting story.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://dice.drivein-jim.net/ my dice collection
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009
wrote:
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://dice.drivein-jim.net/ my dice collection
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009
Peter Flass
May 21, 2013, 8:41:25 PM5/21/13
to
--
Pete
Charlie Gibbs
May 21, 2013, 11:19:10 PM5/21/13
to
In article <knh3o1$88i$2...@dont-email.me>, Peter...@Yahoo.com
Our friends in Bellingham, Washington apologize to Canadians
for their government. We've started apologizing to them for ours.
for their government. We've started apologizing to them for ours.
Bill Leary
May 21, 2013, 10:45:51 PM5/21/13
to
"Simon Brown" wrote in message news:b027jq...@mid.individual.net...
for this discussion was recent times. The last ten years, plus or minus.
- Bill
> "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ULSdnZd865krfwbM...@giganews.com...
>> "Patrick Scheible" wrote in message
>> news:86zjvoc...@chai.my.domain...
> news:ULSdnZd865krfwbM...@giganews.com...
>> "Patrick Scheible" wrote in message
>> news:86zjvoc...@chai.my.domain...
>>> Then you would love the U.S. government. Congress is really
>>> good at floundering aimlessly.
>
>> The problem is, that while they're floundering aimlessly something they
>> did earlier is usually driving us full speed toward destruction.
>
> We didn't see destruction even with two world wars and the great
> depression.
OK. I'll agree with that. However, it was my impression that the context
>>> good at floundering aimlessly.
>
>> The problem is, that while they're floundering aimlessly something they
>> did earlier is usually driving us full speed toward destruction.
>
> We didn't see destruction even with two world wars and the great
> depression.
for this discussion was recent times. The last ten years, plus or minus.
- Bill
Simon Brown
May 22, 2013, 1:56:05 AM5/22/13
to
news:Sr6dnTxBnbr4rAHM...@giganews.com...
We haven't seen destruction in the last 10 years either.
In fact we have seen a hell of a lot less destruction than
was seen the great depression, essentially because
Congress did have enough of a clue to do something
much quicker than it did the last time the shit hit the
fan so spectacularly economically.
Nothing like floundering aimlessly either.
In fact we have seen a hell of a lot less destruction than
was seen the great depression, essentially because
Congress did have enough of a clue to do something
much quicker than it did the last time the shit hit the
fan so spectacularly economically.
Nothing like floundering aimlessly either.
Bill Leary
May 22, 2013, 9:36:48 AM5/22/13
to
"Simon Brown" wrote in message news:b0350t...@mid.individual.net...
> ((..omitted..))
- Bill
> ((..omitted..))
> We haven't seen destruction in the last 10 years either.
>
> ((..omitted..))
>
> Nothing like floundering aimlessly either.
Of course not. The exchange was allegorical, Simon, not literal.
- Bill
Patrick Scheible
May 22, 2013, 12:10:28 PM5/22/13
to
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> In article <knh3o1$88i$2...@dont-email.me>, Peter...@Yahoo.com
> (Peter Flass) writes:
>
>> On 5/21/2013 12:33 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> In article <b00kq2...@mid.individual.net>, s...@kigfr.com
>>> (Simon Brown) writes:
>>>
>>>> The main downside with proportional representation is
>>>> that you don't normally get a simple majority and so the
>>>> government has to be a coalition of disparate parties and
>>>> that often isnt very stable at all.
>>>
>>> You make that sound like a bad thing. I'd prefer a government
>>> that flounders aimlessly over one that drives us full speed
>>> toward destruction.
>>
>> Move south Charlie, move south.
>
> Our friends in Bellingham, Washington apologize to Canadians
> for their government. We've started apologizing to them for ours.
Seems like the most incompetent, xenophobic people in the US get jobs
> In article <knh3o1$88i$2...@dont-email.me>, Peter...@Yahoo.com
> (Peter Flass) writes:
>
>> On 5/21/2013 12:33 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> In article <b00kq2...@mid.individual.net>, s...@kigfr.com
>>> (Simon Brown) writes:
>>>
>>>> The main downside with proportional representation is
>>>> that you don't normally get a simple majority and so the
>>>> government has to be a coalition of disparate parties and
>>>> that often isnt very stable at all.
>>>
>>> You make that sound like a bad thing. I'd prefer a government
>>> that flounders aimlessly over one that drives us full speed
>>> toward destruction.
>>
>> Move south Charlie, move south.
>
> Our friends in Bellingham, Washington apologize to Canadians
> for their government. We've started apologizing to them for ours.
for the Border Patrol and the Immigration and Naturalization Service...
-- Patrick
Walter Bushell
May 22, 2013, 12:58:29 PM5/22/13
to
In article <868v37c...@chai.my.domain>,
No, that's the TSA.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
John Levine
May 22, 2013, 1:01:51 PM5/22/13
to
>>The main downside with proportional representation is
>>that you don't normally get a simple majority and so the government
>>has to be a coalition of disparate parties and that often isnt very
>>stable at all.
>
>That's also the main upside.
In practice it always leads to fractured legislatures with weak
>>that you don't normally get a simple majority and so the government
>>has to be a coalition of disparate parties and that often isnt very
>>stable at all.
>
>That's also the main upside.
coalitions held hostage to the smallest, craziest, party without whom
they'd have (N/2)-1 rather than (N/2)+1 votes. Look at the
legislative histories of Israel and Italy for depressing examples.
The German Bundestag works better because the threshold for getting a
party any seats at all is higher, so coalitions are stabler.
While telling legislators that they all suck and you hate them all may
be satisfying in a sort of junior high school way, it doesn't produce
the broad stable coalitions a legislature needs to be able to solve a
country's problems. Gimmicks like "none of the above" primarily serve
to drive everyone out of politics other than people with nothing to
lose.
For all its problems, the US two party system has historically been
two broad coalitions that have a lot more in common than different.
The last decade or so in which one party (and arguably both) is in
thrall to a handful of rich loonies who imagine compromise to be worse
than death and have no clue how to govern or even how to write a
non-trivial bill that will get a majority of their own votes is a
big problem.
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Simon Brown
May 22, 2013, 3:40:24 PM5/22/13
to
news:yrCdnc8CitpvVAHM...@giganews.com...
It was actually just rhetoric.
Simon Brown
May 22, 2013, 3:59:27 PM5/22/13
to
"John Levine" <jo...@iecc.com> wrote in message
news:knitlv$24iu$1...@leila.iecc.com...
>>>The main downside with proportional representation is
>>>that you don't normally get a simple majority and so the government
>>>has to be a coalition of disparate parties and that often isnt very
>>>stable at all.
>>
>>That's also the main upside.
>
> In practice it always leads to fractured legislatures with weak
> coalitions held hostage to the smallest, craziest, party without whom
> they'd have (N/2)-1 rather than (N/2)+1 votes. Look at the
> legislative histories of Israel and Italy for depressing examples.
> The German Bundestag works better because the threshold for
> getting a party any seats at all is higher, so coalitions are stabler.
But we see some like the Greens with much more political
>>>that you don't normally get a simple majority and so the government
>>>has to be a coalition of disparate parties and that often isnt very
>>>stable at all.
>>
>>That's also the main upside.
>
> In practice it always leads to fractured legislatures with weak
> coalitions held hostage to the smallest, craziest, party without whom
> they'd have (N/2)-1 rather than (N/2)+1 votes. Look at the
> legislative histories of Israel and Italy for depressing examples.
> The German Bundestag works better because the threshold for
> getting a party any seats at all is higher, so coalitions are stabler.
power than the numbers who vote for them warrants.
> While telling legislators that they all suck and you hate them all may
> be satisfying in a sort of junior high school way, it doesn't produce
> the broad stable coalitions a legislature needs to be able to solve a
> country's problems.
better economically than the proportional representation countries.
Tho that question is complicated by the fact that proportional
representation became a fad much more recently, so you can
certainly make a case that it is hardly surprising that the more
recent systems like Israel haven't done very well economically
for other reasons.
> Gimmicks like "none of the above" primarily serve to drive
> everyone out of politics other than people with nothing to lose.
at getting things done in a complex political system involved.
> For all its problems, the US two party system has historically been
> two broad coalitions that have a lot more in common than different.
getting any real political power at all. Same with all the other
places that have not gone for proportional representation systems.
> The last decade or so in which one party (and arguably both) is in
> thrall to a handful of rich loonies who imagine compromise to be worse
> than death and have no clue how to govern or even how to write a
> non-trivial bill that will get a majority of their own votes is a big
> problem.
systems.
Charles Richmond
May 22, 2013, 4:49:51 PM5/22/13
to
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-0E0584....@news.panix.com...
T-S-A is a funny way to spell Gestapo...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
news:proto-0E0584....@news.panix.com...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
Andrew Swallow
May 22, 2013, 4:55:13 PM5/22/13
to
On 22/05/2013 21:49, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
> T-S-A is a funny way to spell Gestapo...
>
> --
>
> numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
>
Not at all similar. The Gestapo were efficient. They also ran a take
>
> T-S-A is a funny way to spell Gestapo...
>
> --
>
> numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
>
away service. The Gestapo would come to your house in the middle of the
night and take you away.
Andrew Swallow
Charlie Gibbs
May 23, 2013, 1:56:14 AM5/23/13
to
In article <b04mec...@mid.individual.net>, s...@kigfr.com
and that of the people, this might not be too convincing an argument.
I've heard that New Zealand is using proportional representation.
Are there any Kiwis here who care to comment? Or anyone from any
other country where proportional representation is used?
(Simon Brown) writes:
> Yes, there is a reason the first past the post countries have
> done much better economically than the proportional representation
> countries.
Given the growing disconnect between the well-being of "the economy"
> Yes, there is a reason the first past the post countries have
> done much better economically than the proportional representation
> countries.
and that of the people, this might not be too convincing an argument.
I've heard that New Zealand is using proportional representation.
Are there any Kiwis here who care to comment? Or anyone from any
other country where proportional representation is used?
Simon Brown
May 23, 2013, 2:02:08 AM5/23/13
to
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
news:807.925T74...@kltpzyxm.invalid...
> In article <b04mec...@mid.individual.net>, s...@kigfr.com
> (Simon Brown) writes:
>> Yes, there is a reason the first past the post countries have done much
>> better economically than the proportional representation countries.
> Given the growing disconnect between the well-being of "the economy"
> and that of the people, this might not be too convincing an argument.
In many ways the proportional representation countries like Italy,
> (Simon Brown) writes:
>> Yes, there is a reason the first past the post countries have done much
>> better economically than the proportional representation countries.
> Given the growing disconnect between the well-being of "the economy"
> and that of the people, this might not be too convincing an argument.
Greece and Spain have done much more badly recently than the
first past the post countries like the US, Australia and Canada etc.
> I've heard that New Zealand is using proportional representation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_New_Zealand#MMP_in_New_Zealand
> Are there any Kiwis here who care to comment?
unstable, essential because the Maori vote does
produce the sort of political instability that is just
about universal with proportional representation systems.
They've only had it since 94.
> Or anyone from any other country where proportional representation is
> used?
Morten Reistad
May 23, 2013, 3:40:52 AM5/23/13
to
In article <b05poh...@mid.individual.net>,
Scandinavia has proportional representation, but with limits. Elections
are per county, with 4 to 20 representatives elected per county. There is
an equalisation buffer, requiring 4% to benefit.
So, our little Liberal party went from 12(?) to 2 representatives when
they fell below 4%.
This has led to a reasonably stable system with two-three large and 4-6
smaller parties in 2-3 blocks contending for government. Having conservative
constitutions helps a lot, with their strict requirements for throwing out
governments.
The systems are stabilised by having large labour and tory parties that
have roughly 2/3rds of votes between them.
-- mrr
are per county, with 4 to 20 representatives elected per county. There is
an equalisation buffer, requiring 4% to benefit.
So, our little Liberal party went from 12(?) to 2 representatives when
they fell below 4%.
This has led to a reasonably stable system with two-three large and 4-6
smaller parties in 2-3 blocks contending for government. Having conservative
constitutions helps a lot, with their strict requirements for throwing out
governments.
The systems are stabilised by having large labour and tory parties that
have roughly 2/3rds of votes between them.
-- mrr
Jean-Marc Bourguet
May 23, 2013, 4:22:30 AM5/23/13
to
Morten Reistad <fi...@last.name> writes:
> This has led to a reasonably stable system with two-three large and 4-6
> smaller parties in 2-3 blocks contending for government. Having conservative
> constitutions helps a lot, with their strict requirements for throwing out
> governments.
Could you expand on these requirements? Something like the need to
> This has led to a reasonably stable system with two-three large and 4-6
> smaller parties in 2-3 blocks contending for government. Having conservative
> constitutions helps a lot, with their strict requirements for throwing out
> governments.
install a new one at the same time?
Yours,
--
Jean-Marc
Message has been deleted
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages