Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
87 views
Skip to first unread message
Marius Hancu
Sep 27, 2012, 8:20:04 AM9/27/12
to
On the BBC site:
Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
Marius Hancu
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 27, 2012, 10:15:24 AM9/27/12
to
"Article":
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Derek Turner
Sep 27, 2012, 3:05:36 PM9/27/12
to
English as spoken by the English. Everything else is an '-ism'.
Mark Brader
Sep 27, 2012, 4:05:02 PM9/27/12
to
Marius Hancu:
| Sell-by date (expiration)
|
| Americans use "expiration date" for the British "sell-by date" -
| the date by which supermarket food must be sold. But "sell-by
| date" is increasingly used in the US in a figurative sense.
| Eg "That idea is well past its sell-by date."
I would recognize either of these, but the only form I'd use in
either the literal or the figurative sense is "best-before date",
because "best before" are the words I see used on packaging.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Don't be silly -- send it to Canada"
m...@vex.net -- British postal worker
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> On the BBC site:
>
> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
That page says:
>
> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
| Sell-by date (expiration)
|
| Americans use "expiration date" for the British "sell-by date" -
| the date by which supermarket food must be sold. But "sell-by
| date" is increasingly used in the US in a figurative sense.
| Eg "That idea is well past its sell-by date."
I would recognize either of these, but the only form I'd use in
either the literal or the figurative sense is "best-before date",
because "best before" are the words I see used on packaging.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Don't be silly -- send it to Canada"
m...@vex.net -- British postal worker
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Donna Richoux
Sep 27, 2012, 4:24:13 PM9/27/12
to
Marius Hancu <marius...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the BBC site:
>
> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>
I think "Britishisation" looks just awful. An "sh" before "is"? I want
> On the BBC site:
>
> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>
to say "Britification" but I doubt that's right either. "Briticism" and
"Briticisation" would do.
Mike Page
Sep 27, 2012, 6:04:24 PM9/27/12
to
--
MP
Mike L
Sep 27, 2012, 6:27:18 PM9/27/12
to
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:05:36 +0100, Derek Turner <frd...@cesmail.net>
wrote:
You are P.Brooks after a few pints of snakebite, AICMFP.
--
Mike.
wrote:
--
Mike.
Katy Jennison
Sep 27, 2012, 6:31:10 PM9/27/12
to
On 27/09/2012 21:05, Mark Brader wrote:
> Marius Hancu:
>> On the BBC site:
>>
>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>
> That page says:
>
> | Sell-by date (expiration)
> |
> | Americans use "expiration date" for the British "sell-by date" -
> | the date by which supermarket food must be sold. But "sell-by
> | date" is increasingly used in the US in a figurative sense.
> | Eg "That idea is well past its sell-by date."
>
> I would recognize either of these, but the only form I'd use in
> either the literal or the figurative sense is "best-before date",
> because "best before" are the words I see used on packaging.
The sell-by date and the best-before date are different: sell-by is
> Marius Hancu:
>> On the BBC site:
>>
>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>
> That page says:
>
> | Sell-by date (expiration)
> |
> | Americans use "expiration date" for the British "sell-by date" -
> | the date by which supermarket food must be sold. But "sell-by
> | date" is increasingly used in the US in a figurative sense.
> | Eg "That idea is well past its sell-by date."
>
> I would recognize either of these, but the only form I'd use in
> either the literal or the figurative sense is "best-before date",
> because "best before" are the words I see used on packaging.
purely for stock control, whereas best-before is for the customer's
information, and is about spoilage time. Our (UK) government has been
seeking to do something about the fiendishly cunning food industry
profiting from the fact that the existence of the sell-by date
encouraged people to throw out perfectly good grub and spend more money
buying unnecessary newer grub.
--
Katy Jennison
Evan Kirshenbaum
Sep 27, 2012, 8:32:11 PM9/27/12
to
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
> Marius Hancu:
>> On the BBC site:
>>
>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>
> That page says:
>
> | Sell-by date (expiration)
> |
> | Americans use "expiration date" for the British "sell-by date" -
> | the date by which supermarket food must be sold. But "sell-by
> | date" is increasingly used in the US in a figurative sense.
> | Eg "That idea is well past its sell-by date."
I thought we used "expiration date" for the British "expiry".
> Marius Hancu:
>> On the BBC site:
>>
>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>
> That page says:
>
> | Sell-by date (expiration)
> |
> | Americans use "expiration date" for the British "sell-by date" -
> | the date by which supermarket food must be sold. But "sell-by
> | date" is increasingly used in the US in a figurative sense.
> | Eg "That idea is well past its sell-by date."
> I would recognize either of these, but the only form I'd use in
> either the literal or the figurative sense is "best-before date",
> because "best before" are the words I see used on packaging.
--
Still with HP Labs |Feeling good about government is like
SF Bay Area (1982-) |looking on the bright side of any
Chicago (1964-1982) |catastrophe. When you quit looking
|on the bright side, the catastrophe
evan.kir...@gmail.com |is still there.
| P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 27, 2012, 8:49:35 PM9/27/12
to
There are two styles: "Use by" and "Best before". The first seems
absolute and the second advisory. The difference might lie in the nature
of the deterioration. Meat falls into the "Use by" category, presumably
because of the risk of bacteria multiplying in at as it starts to go
bad. Other foods that do not deteriorate in such a dangerous way get the
"Best before" date.
Robert Bannister
Sep 27, 2012, 11:25:02 PM9/27/12
to
when it's not at its best. They want us to either eat it now or throw it
away immediately and, in either case, to buy another one.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 27, 2012, 11:30:36 PM9/27/12
to
On 28/09/12 8:32 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
>
>> Marius Hancu:
>>> On the BBC site:
>>>
>>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>
>> That page says:
>>
>> | Sell-by date (expiration)
>> |
>> | Americans use "expiration date" for the British "sell-by date" -
>> | the date by which supermarket food must be sold. But "sell-by
>> | date" is increasingly used in the US in a figurative sense.
>> | Eg "That idea is well past its sell-by date."
>
> I thought we used "expiration date" for the British "expiry".
>
>> I would recognize either of these, but the only form I'd use in
>> either the literal or the figurative sense is "best-before date",
>> because "best before" are the words I see used on packaging.
>
I am glad they have changed the lay-out of my credit cards that used to
> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
>
>> Marius Hancu:
>>> On the BBC site:
>>>
>>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>
>> That page says:
>>
>> | Sell-by date (expiration)
>> |
>> | Americans use "expiration date" for the British "sell-by date" -
>> | the date by which supermarket food must be sold. But "sell-by
>> | date" is increasingly used in the US in a figurative sense.
>> | Eg "That idea is well past its sell-by date."
>
> I thought we used "expiration date" for the British "expiry".
>
>> I would recognize either of these, but the only form I'd use in
>> either the literal or the figurative sense is "best-before date",
>> because "best before" are the words I see used on packaging.
>
be in the scary format:
ROBERT BANNISTER
expires 15/10/12
All they have done is to remove the word "expires" and place the expiry
date plus the starting date that was never there before, directly under
the name.
I suppose I should be thankful there is no "Best before" or "Use by".
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 27, 2012, 11:31:29 PM9/27/12
to
--
Robert Bannister
Mark Brader
Sep 27, 2012, 11:32:45 PM9/27/12
to
Mark Brader:
> > I would recognize either ["sell-by date" or "expiration date"],
That may be, but my point is that packages here aren't marked with
it, unless it's in a hidden code. The only place we see visible
sell-by dates is the dates on magazines, and then they're just
shown as plain dates.
--
Mark Brader | "(I've been told that I suffer from rampant narcissism.
Toronto | Just to confirm the accuracy of this character assessment,
m...@vex.net | I have now shared it with the whole world.)" --Laura Spira
> > I would recognize either ["sell-by date" or "expiration date"],
> > but the only form I'd use in either the literal or the figurative
> > sense is "best-before date", because "best before" are the words
> > I see used on packaging.
Katy Jennison:
> > sense is "best-before date", because "best before" are the words
> > I see used on packaging.
> The sell-by date and the best-before date are different: sell-by is
> purely for stock control...
That may be, but my point is that packages here aren't marked with
it, unless it's in a hidden code. The only place we see visible
sell-by dates is the dates on magazines, and then they're just
shown as plain dates.
--
Mark Brader | "(I've been told that I suffer from rampant narcissism.
Toronto | Just to confirm the accuracy of this character assessment,
m...@vex.net | I have now shared it with the whole world.)" --Laura Spira
Guy Barry
Sep 27, 2012, 11:54:28 PM9/27/12
to
"Donna Richoux" wrote in message
news:1kr3pzn.1p7zc6lww5jvdN%tr...@euronet.nl...
> I think "Britishisation" looks just awful. An "sh" before "is"? I want
> to say "Britification" but I doubt that's right either. "Briticism" and
> "Briticisation" would do.
grounds that there's no word "Britic". I quite like "Britishism"
personally.
--
Guy Barry
MC
Sep 28, 2012, 4:18:24 AM9/28/12
to
In article <ie-dnXq4ZcnAh_jN...@vex.net>,
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Mark Brader:
> > > I would recognize either ["sell-by date" or "expiration date"],
> > > but the only form I'd use in either the literal or the figurative
> > > sense is "best-before date", because "best before" are the words
> > > I see used on packaging.
>
> Katy Jennison:
> > The sell-by date and the best-before date are different: sell-by is
> > purely for stock control...
>
> That may be, but my point is that packages here aren't marked with
> it, unless it's in a hidden code. The only place we see visible
> sell-by dates is the dates on magazines, and then they're just
> shown as plain dates.
We see them on all packaged foods and drinks sold in Canada.
> Mark Brader:
> > > I would recognize either ["sell-by date" or "expiration date"],
> > > but the only form I'd use in either the literal or the figurative
> > > sense is "best-before date", because "best before" are the words
> > > I see used on packaging.
>
> Katy Jennison:
> > The sell-by date and the best-before date are different: sell-by is
> > purely for stock control...
>
> That may be, but my point is that packages here aren't marked with
> it, unless it's in a hidden code. The only place we see visible
> sell-by dates is the dates on magazines, and then they're just
> shown as plain dates.
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
Guy Barry
Sep 28, 2012, 6:00:03 AM9/28/12
to
the Harry Potter books:
http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html
Most of them are fairly predictable but one or two surprised me. Why
does
"Dear Harry, (it said in a very untidy scrawl) I know you get Friday
afternoons off..."
become simply
"Dear Harry, I know you get Friday afternoons off ... "
?
Do Americans all have extremely neat handwriting?
--
Guy Barry
Katy Jennison
Sep 28, 2012, 6:07:28 AM9/28/12
to
--
Katy Jennison
Steve Hayes
Sep 28, 2012, 1:18:15 PM9/28/12
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:00:03 -0700 (PDT), Guy Barry
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 27 Sep, 13:20, Marius Hancu <marius.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On the BBC site:
>>
>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American Englishhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>
>> Marius Hancu
>
>I followed the link from there to the list of Britishisms removed from
>the Harry Potter books:
>
>http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html
>
>Most of them are fairly predictable but one or two surprised me. Why
>does
One that surprised me was that "jump-jets" became "missiles".
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 27 Sep, 13:20, Marius Hancu <marius.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On the BBC site:
>>
>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American Englishhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>
>> Marius Hancu
>
>I followed the link from there to the list of Britishisms removed from
>the Harry Potter books:
>
>http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html
>
>Most of them are fairly predictable but one or two surprised me. Why
>does
I believe that even the US armed forces have used Harriers, and I'm pretty
sure they don't classify them as missiles.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 28, 2012, 2:55:38 PM9/28/12
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:18:15 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>
wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:00:03 -0700 (PDT), Guy Barry
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 27 Sep, 13:20, Marius Hancu <marius.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On the BBC site:
>>>
>>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American Englishhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>>
>>> Marius Hancu
>>
>>I followed the link from there to the list of Britishisms removed from
>>the Harry Potter books:
>>
>>http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html
>>
>>Most of them are fairly predictable but one or two surprised me. Why
>>does
>
>One that surprised me was that "jump-jets" became "missiles".
>
>I believe that even the US armed forces have used Harriers,
They certainly do. The Attack Squadrons of the US Marine Corps fly AV-8B
Harrier II aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_Marine_Corps_aircraft_squadrons#Marine_Attack_Squadrons
You might have seen earlier this month a news report from Camp Bastion,
Afghanistan. A group of Taliban invaded the camp, killed 3 US Marines,
injured others and damaged two USMC Harrier jump-jets.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/taliban-attack-afghanistan-us-british-base-kill-us/story?id=17240973#.UGXyQ64maSo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMA-211
> and I'm pretty
>sure they don't classify them as missiles.
--
wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:00:03 -0700 (PDT), Guy Barry
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 27 Sep, 13:20, Marius Hancu <marius.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On the BBC site:
>>>
>>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American Englishhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>>
>>> Marius Hancu
>>
>>I followed the link from there to the list of Britishisms removed from
>>the Harry Potter books:
>>
>>http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html
>>
>>Most of them are fairly predictable but one or two surprised me. Why
>>does
>
>One that surprised me was that "jump-jets" became "missiles".
>
>I believe that even the US armed forces have used Harriers,
Harrier II aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_Marine_Corps_aircraft_squadrons#Marine_Attack_Squadrons
You might have seen earlier this month a news report from Camp Bastion,
Afghanistan. A group of Taliban invaded the camp, killed 3 US Marines,
injured others and damaged two USMC Harrier jump-jets.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/taliban-attack-afghanistan-us-british-base-kill-us/story?id=17240973#.UGXyQ64maSo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMA-211
> and I'm pretty
>sure they don't classify them as missiles.
--
Don Phillipson
Sep 28, 2012, 3:08:01 PM9/28/12
to
"Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1kr3pzn.1p7zc6lww5jvdN%tr...@euronet.nl...
>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>
> I think "Britishisation" looks just awful. An "sh" before "is"? I want
> to say "Britification" but I doubt that's right either. "Briticism" and
> "Briticisation" would do.
Britification may be preferable to Anglicization (the usual term
among Canadians, especially for Anglicisms in Quebec French,
connoting cultural assimilation.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:1kr3pzn.1p7zc6lww5jvdN%tr...@euronet.nl...
>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>
> I think "Britishisation" looks just awful. An "sh" before "is"? I want
> to say "Britification" but I doubt that's right either. "Briticism" and
> "Briticisation" would do.
among Canadians, especially for Anglicisms in Quebec French,
connoting cultural assimilation.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Mark Brader
Sep 28, 2012, 3:19:03 PM9/28/12
to
Mark Brader:
--
Mark Brader | I rise to speak ... well, actually, I don't rise,
Toronto | nor do I speak, but I lounge to type in his defense.
m...@vex.net | -- Bob Lipton
>> That may be, but my point is that packages here aren't marked with
>> it, unless it's in a hidden code. The only place we see visible
>> sell-by dates is the dates on magazines, and then they're just
>> shown as plain dates.
M. Cope:
>> it, unless it's in a hidden code. The only place we see visible
>> sell-by dates is the dates on magazines, and then they're just
>> shown as plain dates.
> We see them on all packaged foods and drinks sold in Canada.
Er, no, we don't.
--
Mark Brader | I rise to speak ... well, actually, I don't rise,
Toronto | nor do I speak, but I lounge to type in his defense.
m...@vex.net | -- Bob Lipton
Skitt
Sep 28, 2012, 3:40:53 PM9/28/12
to
Guy Barry wrote:
When our family was still in Germany, and we received letters from our
American friends, the writing in those letters looked like it was
produced by six-year-olds.
Unfortunately, mine, which used to be very neat and stylish, has now
deteriorated to a similar level. I think it was college note-taking
that did the most damage.
My dad, however, managed to retain his wonderful handwriting style --
unreadable by those uninitiated in it, but very consistent and beautiful.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
> Marius Hancu wrote:
>> On the BBC site:
>>
>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>
>> On the BBC site:
>>
>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>
> I followed the link from there to the list of Britishisms removed from
> the Harry Potter books:
>
> http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html
>
> Most of them are fairly predictable but one or two surprised me. Why
> does
>
> "Dear Harry, (it said in a very untidy scrawl) I know you get Friday
> afternoons off..."
>
> become simply
>
> "Dear Harry, I know you get Friday afternoons off ... "
>
> ?
>
> Do Americans all have extremely neat handwriting?
Good heavens, no, so the "very untidy scrawl" part goes without saying.
> the Harry Potter books:
>
> http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html
>
> Most of them are fairly predictable but one or two surprised me. Why
> does
>
> "Dear Harry, (it said in a very untidy scrawl) I know you get Friday
> afternoons off..."
>
> become simply
>
> "Dear Harry, I know you get Friday afternoons off ... "
>
> ?
>
> Do Americans all have extremely neat handwriting?
When our family was still in Germany, and we received letters from our
American friends, the writing in those letters looked like it was
produced by six-year-olds.
Unfortunately, mine, which used to be very neat and stylish, has now
deteriorated to a similar level. I think it was college note-taking
that did the most damage.
My dad, however, managed to retain his wonderful handwriting style --
unreadable by those uninitiated in it, but very consistent and beautiful.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
MC
Sep 28, 2012, 4:00:35 PM9/28/12
to
In article <IumdnVREtPa6ZfjN...@vex.net>,
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Mark Brader:
> >> That may be, but my point is that packages here aren't marked with
> >> it, unless it's in a hidden code. The only place we see visible
> >> sell-by dates is the dates on magazines, and then they're just
> >> shown as plain dates.
>
> M. Cope:
> > We see them on all packaged foods and drinks sold in Canada.
>
> Er, no, we don't.
Maybe it's a Quebec thing, then.
> Mark Brader:
> >> That may be, but my point is that packages here aren't marked with
> >> it, unless it's in a hidden code. The only place we see visible
> >> sell-by dates is the dates on magazines, and then they're just
> >> shown as plain dates.
>
> M. Cope:
> > We see them on all packaged foods and drinks sold in Canada.
>
> Er, no, we don't.
Robin Bignall
Sep 28, 2012, 4:07:11 PM9/28/12
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:40:53 -0700, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Guy Barry wrote:
>> Marius Hancu wrote:
>
>>> On the BBC site:
>>>
>>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>
>> I followed the link from there to the list of Britishisms removed from
>> the Harry Potter books:
>>
>> http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html
>>
>> Most of them are fairly predictable but one or two surprised me. Why
>> does
>>
>> "Dear Harry, (it said in a very untidy scrawl) I know you get Friday
>> afternoons off..."
>>
>> become simply
>>
>> "Dear Harry, I know you get Friday afternoons off ... "
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Do Americans all have extremely neat handwriting?
>
>Good heavens, no, so the "very untidy scrawl" part goes without saying.
>
>When our family was still in Germany, and we received letters from our
>American friends, the writing in those letters looked like it was
>produced by six-year-olds.
>
When I used to write to foreign pen friends, my parents insisted that I
>Guy Barry wrote:
>> Marius Hancu wrote:
>
>>> On the BBC site:
>>>
>>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>
>> I followed the link from there to the list of Britishisms removed from
>> the Harry Potter books:
>>
>> http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/potter.html
>>
>> Most of them are fairly predictable but one or two surprised me. Why
>> does
>>
>> "Dear Harry, (it said in a very untidy scrawl) I know you get Friday
>> afternoons off..."
>>
>> become simply
>>
>> "Dear Harry, I know you get Friday afternoons off ... "
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Do Americans all have extremely neat handwriting?
>
>Good heavens, no, so the "very untidy scrawl" part goes without saying.
>
>When our family was still in Germany, and we received letters from our
>American friends, the writing in those letters looked like it was
>produced by six-year-olds.
>
write clearly and legibly. At school we were taught Marion Richardson
style, which has no loops and is almost not "joined up". I expect that
looked a bit childish.
>Unfortunately, mine, which used to be very neat and stylish, has now
>deteriorated to a similar level. I think it was college note-taking
>that did the most damage.
>
career using keyboards.
>My dad, however, managed to retain his wonderful handwriting style --
>unreadable by those uninitiated in it, but very consistent and beautiful.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
Peter Brooks
Sep 28, 2012, 4:40:36 PM9/28/12
to
On Sep 28, 10:07 pm, Robin Bignall <docro...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mine too. It was so perfectly formed it was verging on copper plate.
>
Verdigris?
>
>
> Mine too. It was so perfectly formed it was verging on copper plate.
>
Mike L
Sep 28, 2012, 4:56:49 PM9/28/12
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:07:28 +0100, Katy Jennison
Far OT: There's a would-be subversive document detailing the things a
group of creationists wanted to see corrected about the US. It's
called "The Wedge Document", and among all the Biblical literalism it
calls for the abolition of consumer protection laws. This must be the
Mammonolatrous voice of the sponsor, as my more prominent memories of
the Hebrew Bible include a laudable preoccupation on the part of the
Creator with trading standards and employees' rights.
--
Mike.
group of creationists wanted to see corrected about the US. It's
called "The Wedge Document", and among all the Biblical literalism it
calls for the abolition of consumer protection laws. This must be the
Mammonolatrous voice of the sponsor, as my more prominent memories of
the Hebrew Bible include a laudable preoccupation on the part of the
Creator with trading standards and employees' rights.
--
Mike.
Mike L
Sep 28, 2012, 5:01:01 PM9/28/12
to
was to scrap the Harriers. Smart move, eh?
>
>> and I'm pretty
>>sure they don't classify them as missiles.
--
Mike.
>> and I'm pretty
>>sure they don't classify them as missiles.
--
Oliver Cromm
Sep 28, 2012, 5:41:04 PM9/28/12
to
* MC:
> In article <IumdnVREtPa6ZfjN...@vex.net>,
> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>> Mark Brader:
>>>> That may be, but my point is that packages here aren't marked with
>>>> it, unless it's in a hidden code. The only place we see visible
>>>> sell-by dates is the dates on magazines, and then they're just
>>>> shown as plain dates.
>>
>> M. Cope:
>>> We see them on all packaged foods and drinks sold in Canada.
>>
>> Er, no, we don't.
>
> Maybe it's a Quebec thing, then.
Maybe you mean best-before dates. I have not seen a single sell-by
date in my 10 years in Montreal, and I believe there is no law
prohibiting the sale of food that is past it's best-before date,
either. I have seen stuff expired for a year in for-sale bins, I'm
sure the store was aware of that because that probably landed them
there.
Even best-before dates are missing on many items that have them in
Germany (e.g. chocolate, cookies, many canned foods).
--
Performance: A statement of the speed at which a computer system
works. Or rather, might work under certain circumstances. Or was
rumored to be working over in Jersey about a month ago.
> In article <IumdnVREtPa6ZfjN...@vex.net>,
> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
>> Mark Brader:
>>>> That may be, but my point is that packages here aren't marked with
>>>> it, unless it's in a hidden code. The only place we see visible
>>>> sell-by dates is the dates on magazines, and then they're just
>>>> shown as plain dates.
>>
>> M. Cope:
>>> We see them on all packaged foods and drinks sold in Canada.
>>
>> Er, no, we don't.
>
> Maybe it's a Quebec thing, then.
date in my 10 years in Montreal, and I believe there is no law
prohibiting the sale of food that is past it's best-before date,
either. I have seen stuff expired for a year in for-sale bins, I'm
sure the store was aware of that because that probably landed them
there.
Even best-before dates are missing on many items that have them in
Germany (e.g. chocolate, cookies, many canned foods).
--
Performance: A statement of the speed at which a computer system
works. Or rather, might work under certain circumstances. Or was
rumored to be working over in Jersey about a month ago.
Oliver Cromm
Sep 28, 2012, 5:41:04 PM9/28/12
to
* Marius Hancu:
> On the BBC site:
>
> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
| "It sounds trendy - another borrowing we could use without - to
| use a British term. It just sounds kind of Transatlantic."
Is "use without" an idiom I don't know or a simple mistake for "do
without"?
--
Smith & Wesson--the original point and click interface
> On the BBC site:
>
> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
| use a British term. It just sounds kind of Transatlantic."
Is "use without" an idiom I don't know or a simple mistake for "do
without"?
--
Smith & Wesson--the original point and click interface
Oliver Cromm
Sep 28, 2012, 5:41:05 PM9/28/12
to
* Robert Bannister:
> I am glad they have changed the lay-out of my credit cards that used to
> be in the scary format:
>
> ROBERT BANNISTER
>
> expires 15/10/12
>
> All they have done is to remove the word "expires" and place the expiry
> date plus the starting date that was never there before, directly under
> the name.
Checked two credit cards, both have the dates before the name, as
I expected.
--
A computer will do what you tell it to do, but that may be much
different from what you had in mind. - Joseph Weizenbaum
> I am glad they have changed the lay-out of my credit cards that used to
> be in the scary format:
>
> ROBERT BANNISTER
>
> expires 15/10/12
>
> All they have done is to remove the word "expires" and place the expiry
> date plus the starting date that was never there before, directly under
> the name.
I expected.
--
A computer will do what you tell it to do, but that may be much
different from what you had in mind. - Joseph Weizenbaum
Adam Funk
Sep 28, 2012, 6:36:45 PM9/28/12
to
On 2012-09-27, Derek Turner wrote:
> On 27/09/2012 13:20, Marius Hancu wrote:
>>
> On 27/09/2012 13:20, Marius Hancu wrote:
>>
>> On the BBC site:
>>
>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>
>>
>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>
>> Marius Hancu
>>
>
> WTF is a 'Britishism'.
No, I'm pretty sure 'WTF' is an Americanism.
>>
>
> WTF is a 'Britishism'.
--
...the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not
necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is
simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large
part of a day off to deal with the ravages. [Amis _On Drink_]
Jerry Friedman
Sep 28, 2012, 6:52:12 PM9/28/12
to
On Sep 28, 3:41 pm, Oliver Cromm <lispamat...@crommatograph.info>
wrote:
mistakes sometimes.
--
Jerry Friedman
wrote:
> * Marius Hancu:
>
> > On the BBC site:
>
> > Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>
> | "It sounds trendy - another borrowing we could use without - to
> | use a British term. It just sounds kind of Transatlantic."
>
> Is "use without" an idiom I don't know or a simple mistake for "do
> without"?
A simple but weird mistake. As I've demonstrated, people make weird
>
> > On the BBC site:
>
> > Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>
> | "It sounds trendy - another borrowing we could use without - to
> | use a British term. It just sounds kind of Transatlantic."
>
> Is "use without" an idiom I don't know or a simple mistake for "do
> without"?
mistakes sometimes.
--
Jerry Friedman
tony cooper
Sep 28, 2012, 7:05:24 PM9/28/12
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:41:05 -0400, Oliver Cromm
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>* Robert Bannister:
>
>> I am glad they have changed the lay-out of my credit cards that used to
>> be in the scary format:
>>
>> ROBERT BANNISTER
>>
>> expires 15/10/12
>>
>> All they have done is to remove the word "expires" and place the expiry
>> date plus the starting date that was never there before, directly under
>> the name.
>
>Checked two credit cards, both have the dates before the name, as
>I expected.
My cards have "Good thru" in front of an embossed date.
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>* Robert Bannister:
>
>> I am glad they have changed the lay-out of my credit cards that used to
>> be in the scary format:
>>
>> ROBERT BANNISTER
>>
>> expires 15/10/12
>>
>> All they have done is to remove the word "expires" and place the expiry
>> date plus the starting date that was never there before, directly under
>> the name.
>
>Checked two credit cards, both have the dates before the name, as
>I expected.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 28, 2012, 7:43:47 PM9/28/12
to
practicality.
Mark Brader
Sep 28, 2012, 8:04:39 PM9/28/12
to
Robert Bannister:
>>> I am glad they have changed the lay-out of my credit cards that used to
>>> be in the scary format:
>>>
>>> ROBERT BANNISTER
>>>
>>> expires 15/10/12
>>>
>>> All they have done is to remove the word "expires" and place the expiry
>>> date plus the starting date that was never there before, directly under
>>> the name.
Oliver Cromm:
>>> I am glad they have changed the lay-out of my credit cards that used to
>>> be in the scary format:
>>>
>>> ROBERT BANNISTER
>>>
>>> expires 15/10/12
>>>
>>> All they have done is to remove the word "expires" and place the expiry
>>> date plus the starting date that was never there before, directly under
>>> the name.
>> Checked two credit cards, both have the dates before the name, as
>> I expected.
Tony Cooper:
>> I expected.
> My cards have "Good thru" in front of an embossed date.
In this message, ">" represents a small right-pointing triangle used
as an arrow, and "JUSQU'A" really has the correct accent.
My current Bank of Montreal MasterCard card [sic] has "VALID UNTIL
END OF / VALIDE JUSQU'A LA FIN DE" on two lines above the embossed
date, and my name below. A previous version included a start date
as well. My current Royal Bank Visa card has "MONTH/YEAR" above
the embossed date, and "EXPIRATION: END OF >" to the left of it,
and my name below.
I have two other bank cards that are for ATMs and in-branch
identification; these show my signature but were handed out over the
counter and have no name embossed. My current CIBC Convenience Card
has "MONTH/YEAR" above the embossed date, and "GOOD THRU LAST DAY OF"
on two lines to the left of it. My current TD Canada Trust Access
Card just has "GOOD THRU" on two lines, then ">", to the left of
the embossed date.
I hadn't ever noticed until now that only one of the four cards
has French on it. And none of them uses the word "expiry".
--
Mark Brader | "The inability to distinguish between epistemic and deontic
Toronto | interpretations of 'why', which is common among children,
m...@vex.net | is the source of a great deal of religion." --John Lawler
Robin Bignall
Sep 28, 2012, 8:16:12 PM9/28/12
to
fit aboard.
Robert Bannister
Sep 28, 2012, 11:57:14 PM9/28/12
to
On 29/09/12 4:07 AM, Robin Bignall wrote:
> Mine too. It was so perfectly formed it was verging on copper plate.
>
For a while, we kept some letters written by my father's father from
> Mine too. It was so perfectly formed it was verging on copper plate.
>
before he made the disastrous investment in a cotton mill and was still
a solicitor. The writing can only be described as copperplate. I can
remember thinking it must have been done on a machine because it was so
precise.
--
Robert Bannister
Steve Hayes
Sep 29, 2012, 12:13:01 AM9/29/12
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 23:36:45 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>On 2012-09-27, Derek Turner wrote:
>
>> On 27/09/2012 13:20, Marius Hancu wrote:
>>>
>>> On the BBC site:
>>>
>>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>>
>>> Marius Hancu
>>>
>>
>> WTF is a 'Britishism'.
>
>No, I'm pretty sure 'WTF' is an Americanism.
Like OMG - short for "Oh my GUARD!"
>On 2012-09-27, Derek Turner wrote:
>
>> On 27/09/2012 13:20, Marius Hancu wrote:
>>>
>>> On the BBC site:
>>>
>>> Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>>>
>>> Marius Hancu
>>>
>>
>> WTF is a 'Britishism'.
>
>No, I'm pretty sure 'WTF' is an Americanism.
Steve Hayes
Sep 29, 2012, 12:17:34 AM9/29/12
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:56:49 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Far OT: There's a would-be subversive document detailing the things a
>group of creationists wanted to see corrected about the US. It's
>called "The Wedge Document", and among all the Biblical literalism it
>calls for the abolition of consumer protection laws. This must be the
>Mammonolatrous voice of the sponsor, as my more prominent memories of
>the Hebrew Bible include a laudable preoccupation on the part of the
>Creator with trading standards and employees' rights.
I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
>Far OT: There's a would-be subversive document detailing the things a
>group of creationists wanted to see corrected about the US. It's
>called "The Wedge Document", and among all the Biblical literalism it
>calls for the abolition of consumer protection laws. This must be the
>Mammonolatrous voice of the sponsor, as my more prominent memories of
>the Hebrew Bible include a laudable preoccupation on the part of the
>Creator with trading standards and employees' rights.
USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
R H Draney
Sep 29, 2012, 1:53:51 AM9/29/12
to
Mark Brader filted:
date encoded on the card's magnetic strip is in the format YEAR/MONTH....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>I have two other bank cards that are for ATMs and in-branch
>identification; these show my signature but were handed out over the
>counter and have no name embossed. My current CIBC Convenience Card
>has "MONTH/YEAR" above the embossed date, and "GOOD THRU LAST DAY OF"
>on two lines to the left of it. My current TD Canada Trust Access
>Card just has "GOOD THRU" on two lines, then ">", to the left of
>the embossed date.
You will be pleased to know, I'm sure, that because of ISO standards, the expiry
>I have two other bank cards that are for ATMs and in-branch
>identification; these show my signature but were handed out over the
>counter and have no name embossed. My current CIBC Convenience Card
>has "MONTH/YEAR" above the embossed date, and "GOOD THRU LAST DAY OF"
>on two lines to the left of it. My current TD Canada Trust Access
>Card just has "GOOD THRU" on two lines, then ">", to the left of
>the embossed date.
date encoded on the card's magnetic strip is in the format YEAR/MONTH....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Peter Brooks
Sep 29, 2012, 3:09:05 AM9/29/12
to
On Sep 29, 6:12 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:56:49 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >Far OT: There's a would-be subversive document detailing the things a
> >group of creationists wanted to see corrected about the US. It's
> >called "The Wedge Document", and among all the Biblical literalism it
> >calls for the abolition of consumer protection laws. This must be the
> >Mammonolatrous voice of the sponsor, as my more prominent memories of
> >the Hebrew Bible include a laudable preoccupation on the part of the
> >Creator with trading standards and employees' rights.
>
> I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
> USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
>
I think that Galations 3:28, "There is neither Iewe, nor Greeke, there
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:56:49 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >Far OT: There's a would-be subversive document detailing the things a
> >group of creationists wanted to see corrected about the US. It's
> >called "The Wedge Document", and among all the Biblical literalism it
> >calls for the abolition of consumer protection laws. This must be the
> >Mammonolatrous voice of the sponsor, as my more prominent memories of
> >the Hebrew Bible include a laudable preoccupation on the part of the
> >Creator with trading standards and employees' rights.
>
> I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
> USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
>
is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
all one in Christ Iesus." can be taken as approval for slavery as,
just as Jews were not expected to turn into Greek, so bondsmen weren't
supposed to become freemen.
Slavery, though providing a living (a dead slave being worthless
outside cannibal circles) is unwaged. If that's approved of by the
gods, then why would they be bothered by merely exploitative wages for
the free?
Guy Barry
Sep 29, 2012, 3:32:40 AM9/29/12
to
"Oliver Cromm" wrote in message
news:l3laxoxbzutx$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info...
> * Marius Hancu:
> > On the BBC site:
>
> > Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
> | "It sounds trendy - another borrowing we could use without - to
> | use a British term. It just sounds kind of Transatlantic."
> Is "use without" an idiom I don't know or a simple mistake for "do
> without"?
The speaker was Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at the University of
California. Was he trying to copy a British idiom and getting it wrong?
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Sep 29, 2012, 3:48:25 AM9/29/12
to
"Adam Funk" wrote in message news:tclhj9x...@news.ducksburg.com...
> On 2012-09-27, Derek Turner wrote:
> > WTF is a 'Britishism'.
> No, I'm pretty sure 'WTF' is an Americanism.
--
Guy Barry
Nick Spalding
Sep 29, 2012, 5:20:07 AM9/29/12
to
Robin Bignall wrote, in <39fc68pta40pc2b8m...@4ax.com>
on Sat, 29 Sep 2012 01:16:12 +0100:
To be fair they didn't commission them, they just failed to cancel them.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
on Sat, 29 Sep 2012 01:16:12 +0100:
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 29, 2012, 6:41:28 AM9/29/12
to
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 08:32:40 +0100, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>"Oliver Cromm" wrote in message
>news:l3laxoxbzutx$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info...
>
>> * Marius Hancu:
>
>> > On the BBC site:
>>
>> > Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>
>> | "It sounds trendy - another borrowing we could use without - to
>> | use a British term. It just sounds kind of Transatlantic."
>
>> Is "use without" an idiom I don't know or a simple mistake for "do
>> without"?
>
>I've never heard it - it's always "do without" that I've heard.
>
Ditto.
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>"Oliver Cromm" wrote in message
>news:l3laxoxbzutx$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info...
>
>> * Marius Hancu:
>
>> > On the BBC site:
>>
>> > Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English
>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686
>
>> | "It sounds trendy - another borrowing we could use without - to
>> | use a British term. It just sounds kind of Transatlantic."
>
>> Is "use without" an idiom I don't know or a simple mistake for "do
>> without"?
>
>I've never heard it - it's always "do without" that I've heard.
>
>The speaker was Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at the University of
>California. Was he trying to copy a British idiom and getting it wrong?
misheard a squished "manage" as "use". Some people will sometimes
pronounce "manage" as almost a single syllable.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 29, 2012, 7:06:26 AM9/29/12
to
acceptable then "What the Fuck".
MC
Sep 29, 2012, 8:50:37 AM9/29/12
to
In article <9Jx9s.33785$pO4....@fx17.am4>,
I saw a WTF license (licence) plate on a car the other day.
Guy Barry
Sep 29, 2012, 11:40:29 AM9/29/12
to
"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
news:6pjd68hvt1i58s95a...@4ax.com...
["use without"]
> > I've never heard it - it's always "do without" that I've heard.
>
> Ditto.
> > The speaker was Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at the University of
> >California. Was he trying to copy a British idiom and getting it wrong?
> It's a long shot, but I wonder whether he had heard "manage without" and
> misheard a squished "manage" as "use". Some people will sometimes
> pronounce "manage" as almost a single syllable.
How on earth would he have heard that? It's marginally more likely that he
>
> Ditto.
> > The speaker was Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at the University of
> >California. Was he trying to copy a British idiom and getting it wrong?
> It's a long shot, but I wonder whether he had heard "manage without" and
> misheard a squished "manage" as "use". Some people will sometimes
> pronounce "manage" as almost a single syllable.
heard "do without" - at least it has the same vowel (and the same number of
syllables).
But really I've no idea. I think he just screwed up.
--
Guy Barry
Robin Bignall
Sep 29, 2012, 12:01:15 PM9/29/12
to
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:20:07 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
wrote:
True, but it was because the previous lot had signed contracts that
could not be modified without incurring greater costs than just building
the things.
wrote:
could not be modified without incurring greater costs than just building
the things.
Mike L
Sep 29, 2012, 4:31:13 PM9/29/12
to
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:17:34 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:56:49 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Far OT: There's a would-be subversive document detailing the things a
>>group of creationists wanted to see corrected about the US. It's
>>called "The Wedge Document", and among all the Biblical literalism it
>>calls for the abolition of consumer protection laws. This must be the
>>Mammonolatrous voice of the sponsor, as my more prominent memories of
>>the Hebrew Bible include a laudable preoccupation on the part of the
>>Creator with trading standards and employees' rights.
>
>I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
>USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
There you go: too Jewish, innit. When Paul mentioned the grafting, he
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:56:49 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Far OT: There's a would-be subversive document detailing the things a
>>group of creationists wanted to see corrected about the US. It's
>>called "The Wedge Document", and among all the Biblical literalism it
>>calls for the abolition of consumer protection laws. This must be the
>>Mammonolatrous voice of the sponsor, as my more prominent memories of
>>the Hebrew Bible include a laudable preoccupation on the part of the
>>Creator with trading standards and employees' rights.
>
>I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
>USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
knew that you have to cut the old top right off.
--
Mike.
Mike L
Sep 29, 2012, 4:35:22 PM9/29/12
to
present British forces apparently have to do inconveniently from bases
in the US.
--
Mike.
Robin Bignall
Sep 29, 2012, 8:19:43 PM9/29/12
to
home for R&R sounds safer than doing it from an unprotected carrier in
the Gulf. I bet our servicepersons would rather be in America than
Afghanistan.
JNugent
Sep 30, 2012, 8:03:01 AM9/30/12
to
On 29/09/2012 08:09, Peter Brooks wrote:
> Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Far OT: There's a would-be subversive document detailing the things a
>>> group of creationists wanted to see corrected about the US. It's
>>> called "The Wedge Document", and among all the Biblical literalism it
>>> calls for the abolition of consumer protection laws. This must be the
>>> Mammonolatrous voice of the sponsor, as my more prominent memories of
>>> the Hebrew Bible include a laudable preoccupation on the part of the
>>> Creator with trading standards and employees' rights.
>
>> I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
>> USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
>
> I think that Galations 3:28, "There is neither Iewe, nor Greeke, there
> is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
> all one in Christ Iesus." can be taken as approval for slavery as,
> just as Jews were not expected to turn into Greek, so bondsmen weren't
> supposed to become freemen.
Or, alternatively (and more credibly), that being a slave was not a bar to
being a Christian.
> Slavery, though providing a living (a dead slave being worthless
> outside cannibal circles) is unwaged. If that's approved of by the
> gods, then why would they be bothered by merely exploitative wages for
> the free?
"If".
> Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Far OT: There's a would-be subversive document detailing the things a
>>> group of creationists wanted to see corrected about the US. It's
>>> called "The Wedge Document", and among all the Biblical literalism it
>>> calls for the abolition of consumer protection laws. This must be the
>>> Mammonolatrous voice of the sponsor, as my more prominent memories of
>>> the Hebrew Bible include a laudable preoccupation on the part of the
>>> Creator with trading standards and employees' rights.
>
>> I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
>> USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
>
> I think that Galations 3:28, "There is neither Iewe, nor Greeke, there
> is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
> all one in Christ Iesus." can be taken as approval for slavery as,
> just as Jews were not expected to turn into Greek, so bondsmen weren't
> supposed to become freemen.
being a Christian.
> Slavery, though providing a living (a dead slave being worthless
> outside cannibal circles) is unwaged. If that's approved of by the
> gods, then why would they be bothered by merely exploitative wages for
> the free?
Jerry Friedman
Sep 30, 2012, 9:25:42 AM9/30/12
to
On Sep 29, 9:40 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in messagenews:6pjd68hvt1i58s95a...@4ax.com...
Nunberg says he was misquoted on "put in quarantine", and disagrees
with the descriptions of him as "snapping" and "quivering".
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4225
--
Jerry Friedman
> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in messagenews:6pjd68hvt1i58s95a...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 08:32:40 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> > <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ["use without"]
>
> > > I've never heard it - it's always "do without" that I've heard.
>
> > Ditto.
> > > The speaker was GeoffreyNunberg, a linguist at the University of
> > On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 08:32:40 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> > <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ["use without"]
>
> > > I've never heard it - it's always "do without" that I've heard.
>
> > Ditto.
> > >California. Was he trying to copy a British idiom and getting it wrong?
> > It's a long shot, but I wonder whether he had heard "manage without" and
> > misheard a squished "manage" as "use". Some people will sometimes
> > pronounce "manage" as almost a single syllable.
>
> How on earth would he have heard that? It's marginally more likely that he
> heard "do without" - at least it has the same vowel (and the same number of
> syllables).
>
> But really I've no idea. I think he just screwed up.
As I should have realized before, maybe the journalist screwed up.
> > It's a long shot, but I wonder whether he had heard "manage without" and
> > misheard a squished "manage" as "use". Some people will sometimes
> > pronounce "manage" as almost a single syllable.
>
> How on earth would he have heard that? It's marginally more likely that he
> heard "do without" - at least it has the same vowel (and the same number of
> syllables).
>
> But really I've no idea. I think he just screwed up.
Nunberg says he was misquoted on "put in quarantine", and disagrees
with the descriptions of him as "snapping" and "quivering".
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4225
--
Jerry Friedman
Guy Barry
Sep 30, 2012, 10:52:24 AM9/30/12
to
"Jerry Friedman" wrote in message
news:95211019-d3a2-42f1...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
["use without"]
> > But really I've no idea. I think he just screwed up.
> As I should have realized before, maybe the journalist screwed up.
> Nunberg says he was misquoted on "put in quarantine", and disagrees
> with the descriptions of him as "snapping" and "quivering".
> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4225
Maybe the journalist thought that "use without" was an Americanism, then.
> As I should have realized before, maybe the journalist screwed up.
> Nunberg says he was misquoted on "put in quarantine", and disagrees
> with the descriptions of him as "snapping" and "quivering".
> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4225
What did he actually say?
--
Guy Barry
Oliver Cromm
Sep 30, 2012, 12:47:57 PM9/30/12
to
* Jerry Friedman:
Well, the word "use" follows, correctly, a few words later in the
sentence. I think the writer just got ahead of himself, or it
might be a result of editing. Those things happens in writing and
aren't an indication that the writer would say the same thing.
--
OliverC
sentence. I think the writer just got ahead of himself, or it
might be a result of editing. Those things happens in writing and
aren't an indication that the writer would say the same thing.
--
OliverC
Mike L
Sep 30, 2012, 6:13:59 PM9/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 01:19:43 +0100, Robin Bignall
Well, as you know, I have grave reservations about the military value
and political consequences of UAVs as they're being used at present.
And, in any case, it's not a good idea to deploy a carrier without
appropriate protection.
--
Mike.
and political consequences of UAVs as they're being used at present.
And, in any case, it's not a good idea to deploy a carrier without
appropriate protection.
--
Mike.
Robert Bannister
Sep 30, 2012, 9:38:40 PM9/30/12
to
--
Robert Bannister
rwalker
Sep 30, 2012, 10:59:18 PM9/30/12
to
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:17:34 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
>USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
Stupid. They give all of us (USians) a bad name. The ignorant are
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
>USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
always the loudest, and the willfully ignorant are the loudest of
those.
rwalker
Sep 30, 2012, 11:02:49 PM9/30/12
to
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:18:15 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>One that surprised me was that "jump-jets" became "missiles".
>
>I believe that even the US armed forces have used Harriers, and I'm pretty
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>One that surprised me was that "jump-jets" became "missiles".
>
>sure they don't classify them as missiles.
Correct on both counts.
Peter Brooks
Oct 1, 2012, 12:41:44 AM10/1/12
to
On Sep 30, 2:03 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 29/09/2012 08:09, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> Far OT: There's a would-be subversive document detailing the things a
> >>> group of creationists wanted to see corrected about the US. It's
> >>> called "The Wedge Document", and among all the Biblical literalism it
> >>> calls for the abolition of consumer protection laws. This must be the
> >>> Mammonolatrous voice of the sponsor, as my more prominent memories of
> >>> the Hebrew Bible include a laudable preoccupation on the part of the
> >>> Creator with trading standards and employees' rights.
>
> >> I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
> >> USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
>
> > I think that Galations 3:28, "There is neither Iewe, nor Greeke, there
> > is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
> > all one in Christ Iesus." can be taken as approval for slavery as,
> > just as Jews were not expected to turn into Greek, so bondsmen weren't
> > supposed to become freemen.
>
> Or, alternatively (and more credibly), that being a slave was not a bar to
> being a Christian.
>
Also, rather than alternatively.
> On 29/09/2012 08:09, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >> Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> Far OT: There's a would-be subversive document detailing the things a
> >>> group of creationists wanted to see corrected about the US. It's
> >>> called "The Wedge Document", and among all the Biblical literalism it
> >>> calls for the abolition of consumer protection laws. This must be the
> >>> Mammonolatrous voice of the sponsor, as my more prominent memories of
> >>> the Hebrew Bible include a laudable preoccupation on the part of the
> >>> Creator with trading standards and employees' rights.
>
> >> I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
> >> USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
>
> > I think that Galations 3:28, "There is neither Iewe, nor Greeke, there
> > is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
> > all one in Christ Iesus." can be taken as approval for slavery as,
> > just as Jews were not expected to turn into Greek, so bondsmen weren't
> > supposed to become freemen.
>
> Or, alternatively (and more credibly), that being a slave was not a bar to
> being a Christian.
>
>
> > Slavery, though providing a living (a dead slave being worthless
> > outside cannibal circles) is unwaged. If that's approved of by the
> > gods, then why would they be bothered by merely exploitative wages for
> > the free?
>
> "If".
>
I was being kind, 'when', of course.
> > Slavery, though providing a living (a dead slave being worthless
> > outside cannibal circles) is unwaged. If that's approved of by the
> > gods, then why would they be bothered by merely exploitative wages for
> > the free?
>
> "If".
>
Peter Brooks
Oct 1, 2012, 12:45:03 AM10/1/12
to
"
For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have
abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that
which he hath.
"
JC's insight into economics was impressive, certainly for the time.
Steve Hayes
Oct 1, 2012, 1:17:18 AM10/1/12
to
http://www.afgen.com/afrikaners.html
Robin Bignall
Oct 1, 2012, 11:19:06 AM10/1/12
to
more laissez faire.
Robin Bignall
Oct 1, 2012, 11:19:57 AM10/1/12
to
Peter Brooks
Oct 1, 2012, 12:16:58 PM10/1/12
to
is even closer to JC's observation than commie economics.
The difference isn't that obvious to the poor bloke in the street.
You're as buggered if you're poor in either case - it's just that, in
a commie state, you don't have so much boom and bust, you have a more
consistent bust state that you can get used to.
The main trick, if you're poor, lazy, or incapable of work by means of
mental or physical impairment, is to live somewhere warm and cheap.
Whether it's run by left or right wing fascisti makes little odds,
though, these days, the right wing ones will be watching you more
closely.
Jerry Friedman
Oct 1, 2012, 12:28:21 PM10/1/12
to
but he hasn't said anything beyond his original post. It's
journalism, so we'll probably never know what really happened.
--
Jerry Friedman
Fran Kemmish
Oct 1, 2012, 2:07:38 PM10/1/12
to
> "
> For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have
> abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that
> which he hath.
> "
Fran
Lanarcam
Oct 1, 2012, 2:26:51 PM10/1/12
to
Le 01/10/2012 17:19, Robin Bignall a écrit :
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:45:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
>> "
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:45:03 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
>> "
>> For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have
>> abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that
>> which he hath.
>> "
>>
>> JC's insight into economics was impressive, certainly for the time.
>
> He was obviously looking forward to communism/socialism. Capitalism is
> more laissez faire.
>
That wouldn't square in some circles.
>> abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that
>> which he hath.
>> "
>>
>> JC's insight into economics was impressive, certainly for the time.
>
> He was obviously looking forward to communism/socialism. Capitalism is
> more laissez faire.
>
rwalker
Oct 1, 2012, 3:00:06 PM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 16:19:57 +0100, Robin Bignall
<docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>Stupid. They give all of us (USians) a bad name. The ignorant are
>>always the loudest, and the willfully ignorant are the loudest of
>>those.
>
>Empty vessels make the most sound.
>--
Haven't heard that before, but I like it.
<docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>Stupid. They give all of us (USians) a bad name. The ignorant are
>>always the loudest, and the willfully ignorant are the loudest of
>>those.
>
>Empty vessels make the most sound.
>--
rwalker
Oct 1, 2012, 3:01:02 PM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 07:17:18 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 22:59:18 -0400, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:17:34 +0200, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
>>>USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
>>
>>Stupid. They give all of us (USians) a bad name. The ignorant are
>>always the loudest, and the willfully ignorant are the loudest of
>>those.
>
>And America is not alone in having such elements -- we have them too, eg:
>
>http://www.afgen.com/afrikaners.html
They are a scourge upon the earth.
>On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 22:59:18 -0400, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:17:34 +0200, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
>>>USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
>>
>>Stupid. They give all of us (USians) a bad name. The ignorant are
>>always the loudest, and the willfully ignorant are the loudest of
>>those.
>
>And America is not alone in having such elements -- we have them too, eg:
>
>http://www.afgen.com/afrikaners.html
Peter Brooks
Oct 1, 2012, 3:31:27 PM10/1/12
to
On Oct 1, 9:01 pm, rwalker <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 07:17:18 +0200, Steve Hayes
>
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 07:17:18 +0200, Steve Hayes
>
> They are a scourge upon the earth.
>
The kindest sort, really, the earth not having any nerves.
>
Robin Bignall
Oct 1, 2012, 5:05:55 PM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:00:06 -0400, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com>
wrote:
It's a very old adage in the UK; one of my father's favourites.
wrote:
Mike Barnes
Oct 1, 2012, 5:40:09 PM10/1/12
to
Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com>:
Same here, but "...the most noise".
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Robin Bignall
Oct 1, 2012, 7:01:36 PM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:40:09 +0100, Mike Barnes <mikeba...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Actually, that's more pithy, but I learned 'sound' at dad's knee and
it's hard to change.
wrote:
it's hard to change.
Robert Bannister
Oct 1, 2012, 9:16:51 PM10/1/12
to
--
Robert Bannister
Nick Spalding
Oct 2, 2012, 5:10:46 AM10/2/12
to
Robin Bignall wrote, in <948k681h4lfhcutnm...@4ax.com>
on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 00:01:36 +0100:
Me too, and that's the version I quoted here a bit over a month ago.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 00:01:36 +0100:
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Charles Bishop
Oct 3, 2012, 10:46:21 PM10/3/12
to
In article <km1i68pd2lkb2bdkh...@4ax.com>, rwalker
I was wondering why the people were identified as USAians. Surely "a group
of people" would get the same point across. Unless someone thinks only
USAian christians would hold that view.
--
charles
of people" would get the same point across. Unless someone thinks only
USAian christians would hold that view.
--
charles
Steve Hayes
Oct 4, 2012, 12:06:21 AM10/4/12
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:46:21 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop)
wrote:
I am not sure if only US Christians hold that view, but I've not heard it from
any others, or at least not from any outside North America. And those from
other countries, like me, expressed astonishment that anyone could hold such a
view. I take it that it is therefore a geographical cultural phenomenon.
wrote:
any others, or at least not from any outside North America. And those from
other countries, like me, expressed astonishment that anyone could hold such a
view. I take it that it is therefore a geographical cultural phenomenon.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Oct 4, 2012, 7:11:22 AM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:06:21 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:46:21 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <km1i68pd2lkb2bdkh...@4ax.com>, rwalker
>><rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:17:34 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
>>>>USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
>>>
>>>Stupid. They give all of us (USians) a bad name. The ignorant are
>>>always the loudest, and the willfully ignorant are the loudest of
>>>those.
>>
>>I was wondering why the people were identified as USAians. Surely "a group
>>of people" would get the same point across. Unless someone thinks only
>>USAian christians would hold that view.
>
>I am not sure if only US Christians hold that view, but I've not heard it from
>any others, or at least not from any outside North America. And those from
>other countries, like me, expressed astonishment that anyone could hold such a
>view. I take it that it is therefore a geographical cultural phenomenon.
Seconded.
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:46:21 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <km1i68pd2lkb2bdkh...@4ax.com>, rwalker
>><rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:17:34 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
>>>>USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
>>>
>>>Stupid. They give all of us (USians) a bad name. The ignorant are
>>>always the loudest, and the willfully ignorant are the loudest of
>>>those.
>>
>>I was wondering why the people were identified as USAians. Surely "a group
>>of people" would get the same point across. Unless someone thinks only
>>USAian christians would hold that view.
>
>I am not sure if only US Christians hold that view, but I've not heard it from
>any others, or at least not from any outside North America. And those from
>other countries, like me, expressed astonishment that anyone could hold such a
>view. I take it that it is therefore a geographical cultural phenomenon.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
tony cooper
Oct 4, 2012, 9:32:56 AM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:06:21 +0200, Steve Hayes
whackos usually base their positions on some biblical phrase that
justifies the belief.
Saying that a living wage is anti-Christian implies that wages are OK,
but not a living wage. There are enough phrases in the Bible for them
to take the position that poverty is to be favored, that no wages
should be paid or taken, or that wealth is unChristian, but nothing
that I can think of that places a *limit* on wages.
In Catholicism, a vow of poverty is a requirement for some priests and
nuns. That's zero wages, not under a living wage. There are other
religious groups that ascribe to a vow of poverty. Eschewing all
worldly goods for religious reasons is not a "USAian" religious thing;
it's a practice by some all over the world.
I'm not convinced that what was actually said is what was reported
here: a living wage is anti-Christian. Are you sure that it was
specifically a *living wage* and not just wages?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:46:21 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <km1i68pd2lkb2bdkh...@4ax.com>, rwalker
>><rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:17:34 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
>>>>USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
>>>
>>>Stupid. They give all of us (USians) a bad name. The ignorant are
>>>always the loudest, and the willfully ignorant are the loudest of
>>>those.
>>
>>I was wondering why the people were identified as USAians. Surely "a group
>>of people" would get the same point across. Unless someone thinks only
>>USAian christians would hold that view.
>
>I am not sure if only US Christians hold that view, but I've not heard it from
>any others, or at least not from any outside North America. And those from
>other countries, like me, expressed astonishment that anyone could hold such a
>view. I take it that it is therefore a geographical cultural phenomenon.
I'm a little bit dubious about what you've reported here. Christian
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:46:21 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <km1i68pd2lkb2bdkh...@4ax.com>, rwalker
>><rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:17:34 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I was once quite astounded to get involved in an argument with a group of
>>>>USians who insisted that a living wage was "anti-Christian".
>>>
>>>Stupid. They give all of us (USians) a bad name. The ignorant are
>>>always the loudest, and the willfully ignorant are the loudest of
>>>those.
>>
>>I was wondering why the people were identified as USAians. Surely "a group
>>of people" would get the same point across. Unless someone thinks only
>>USAian christians would hold that view.
>
>I am not sure if only US Christians hold that view, but I've not heard it from
>any others, or at least not from any outside North America. And those from
>other countries, like me, expressed astonishment that anyone could hold such a
>view. I take it that it is therefore a geographical cultural phenomenon.
whackos usually base their positions on some biblical phrase that
justifies the belief.
Saying that a living wage is anti-Christian implies that wages are OK,
but not a living wage. There are enough phrases in the Bible for them
to take the position that poverty is to be favored, that no wages
should be paid or taken, or that wealth is unChristian, but nothing
that I can think of that places a *limit* on wages.
In Catholicism, a vow of poverty is a requirement for some priests and
nuns. That's zero wages, not under a living wage. There are other
religious groups that ascribe to a vow of poverty. Eschewing all
worldly goods for religious reasons is not a "USAian" religious thing;
it's a practice by some all over the world.
I'm not convinced that what was actually said is what was reported
here: a living wage is anti-Christian. Are you sure that it was
specifically a *living wage* and not just wages?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
Oct 4, 2012, 12:44:49 PM10/4/12
to
On Oct 4, 7:33 am, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:06:21 +0200, Steve Hayes> <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:46:21 -0800, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop)
> >wrote:> >>In article <km1i68pd2lkb2bdkhep9qe6np4qlo9d...@4ax.com>, rwalker
"Living wage" can be code for "minimum wage".
At this page, two Catholic priests (at least one of them is) argue
that a "living wage" (they use the quotation marks) is anti-Christian
for the usual economic reasons: it supposedly increases unemployment
and raises prices, so it hurts the people it's supposed to benefit.
http://www.acton.org/public-policy/effective-compassion/employment/living-wage-anti-christian
--
Jerry Friedman
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 06:06:21 +0200, Steve Hayes> <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:46:21 -0800, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop)
> >wrote:> >>In article <km1i68pd2lkb2bdkhep9qe6np4qlo9d...@4ax.com>, rwalker
At this page, two Catholic priests (at least one of them is) argue
that a "living wage" (they use the quotation marks) is anti-Christian
for the usual economic reasons: it supposedly increases unemployment
and raises prices, so it hurts the people it's supposed to benefit.
http://www.acton.org/public-policy/effective-compassion/employment/living-wage-anti-christian
--
Jerry Friedman
Mike L
Oct 5, 2012, 5:23:38 PM10/5/12
to
We tend to associate loony Christian extremism with the US rather than
other countries because in such a large population even a very small
percentage is a big enough number to notice, and to have political
influence.
--
Mike.
tony cooper
Oct 5, 2012, 6:30:47 PM10/5/12
to
examined as an example of redundant phraseology along with "obese fat
people".
>rather than
>other countries because in such a large population even a very small
>percentage is a big enough number to notice, and to have political
>influence.
--
rnet...@gmail.com
Oct 5, 2012, 7:08:03 PM10/5/12
to
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:48:23 AM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
> Surely "WTF" is an internet-ism.
Perhaps 20 years ago I was shown a US Navy manual titled "Official List of Abbreviations for use in Communications" or some such. There I saw:
WTF? with definition "I did not understand your last message. Please repeat."
Since the manual was a few years old when I saw it, WTF would appear to predate the internet.
Bob Netzlof
> Surely "WTF" is an internet-ism.
Perhaps 20 years ago I was shown a US Navy manual titled "Official List of Abbreviations for use in Communications" or some such. There I saw:
WTF? with definition "I did not understand your last message. Please repeat."
Since the manual was a few years old when I saw it, WTF would appear to predate the internet.
Bob Netzlof
Robert Bannister
Oct 5, 2012, 10:18:46 PM10/5/12
to
--
Robert Bannister
Guy Barry
Oct 6, 2012, 12:24:41 AM10/6/12
to
metzlof wrote in message
news:fabcc86d-27ea-4fb2...@googlegroups.com...
know when WTF first appeared.
--
Guy Barry
Steve Hayes
Oct 6, 2012, 2:15:28 AM10/6/12
to
describe itself as "the moral majority" and not have that claim seriously
challenged.
Whereas if any group of Christians in the UK expressed such a sentiment, any
claim to be the "moral majority" would be ridiculed. Not that I think the
media-appointed moral majority in Britain are worthy of much respect -- its
just that the issues are different. I recall that, not all that long ago, the
Brit media were hailing Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's demands for detention
without trial as "the moral high ground", as compared with those in their
party who rejected such a thing. Perhaps British Christians generally side
with the media on that issue, but I doubt that they would reject a living wage
as not merely unChristian but antiChristian.
Garrett Wollman
Oct 6, 2012, 2:59:49 AM10/6/12
to
In article <fmiv689a3760qen1n...@4ax.com>,
the Baptist televangelist Jerry Falwell and the right-wing Catholic
activist Paul Weyrich. It disbanded in the late 1980s (says
Wikipedia), and its role in politics passed on to other groups and
right-wing think tanks, most notably Ralph Reed's "Christian
Coalition".
These people are in general so confused about what their Lord and
Savior actually said about morality that they believe anything to the
political left of Pat Buchanan is inherently unChristian. (Actually,
I don't think the leaders are confused at all, just liars.)
Unfortunately, under many different guises they continue to be a
significant political force in the U.S. to this day, and explains a
great deal of the opposition to Obama's agenda (which would be
considered center-right in nearly any other country), particularly his
signature health-care law (which was adopted, nearly lock stock and
barrel, from the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank).
These religious groups (not the Catholic ones, which at least retain
some shred of dignity, but many of the independent southern and
western Protestant ones) are also the prime purveyors of the so-called
"prosperity Gospel", which holds (I am caricaturing here) that a
believer's good economic fortune is a sign of the Lord's favor. (You
might legitimately ask about what the nonbeliever's good economic
fortune is a sign of... I don't know how they answer that question.)
I do despair sometimes that we will ever get our political system back
from the loonies. I know that these things come in cycles, but at
such a critical juncture in history, I would prefer to have multiple
options at the ballot box.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>But it also tends to be more loony and more extreme, but big enough to
>describe itself as "the moral majority" and not have that claim seriously
>challenged.
"Moral Majority" was the name of a specific pressure group, founded by
>But it also tends to be more loony and more extreme, but big enough to
>describe itself as "the moral majority" and not have that claim seriously
>challenged.
the Baptist televangelist Jerry Falwell and the right-wing Catholic
activist Paul Weyrich. It disbanded in the late 1980s (says
Wikipedia), and its role in politics passed on to other groups and
right-wing think tanks, most notably Ralph Reed's "Christian
Coalition".
These people are in general so confused about what their Lord and
Savior actually said about morality that they believe anything to the
political left of Pat Buchanan is inherently unChristian. (Actually,
I don't think the leaders are confused at all, just liars.)
Unfortunately, under many different guises they continue to be a
significant political force in the U.S. to this day, and explains a
great deal of the opposition to Obama's agenda (which would be
considered center-right in nearly any other country), particularly his
signature health-care law (which was adopted, nearly lock stock and
barrel, from the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank).
These religious groups (not the Catholic ones, which at least retain
some shred of dignity, but many of the independent southern and
western Protestant ones) are also the prime purveyors of the so-called
"prosperity Gospel", which holds (I am caricaturing here) that a
believer's good economic fortune is a sign of the Lord's favor. (You
might legitimately ask about what the nonbeliever's good economic
fortune is a sign of... I don't know how they answer that question.)
I do despair sometimes that we will ever get our political system back
from the loonies. I know that these things come in cycles, but at
such a critical juncture in history, I would prefer to have multiple
options at the ballot box.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Steve Hayes
Oct 6, 2012, 4:38:05 AM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 06:59:49 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett
Wollman) wrote:
>In article <fmiv689a3760qen1n...@4ax.com>,
>Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>But it also tends to be more loony and more extreme, but big enough to
>>describe itself as "the moral majority" and not have that claim seriously
>>challenged.
>
>"Moral Majority" was the name of a specific pressure group, founded by
>the Baptist televangelist Jerry Falwell and the right-wing Catholic
>activist Paul Weyrich. It disbanded in the late 1980s (says
>Wikipedia), and its role in politics passed on to other groups and
>right-wing think tanks, most notably Ralph Reed's "Christian
>Coalition".
>
>These people are in general so confused about what their Lord and
>Savior actually said about morality that they believe anything to the
>political left of Pat Buchanan is inherently unChristian. (Actually,
>I don't think the leaders are confused at all, just liars.)
>Unfortunately, under many different guises they continue to be a
>significant political force in the U.S. to this day, and explains a
>great deal of the opposition to Obama's agenda (which would be
>considered center-right in nearly any other country), particularly his
>signature health-care law (which was adopted, nearly lock stock and
>barrel, from the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank).
Thanks for the historical summary. I think it was people of that persuasion
Wollman) wrote:
>In article <fmiv689a3760qen1n...@4ax.com>,
>Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>But it also tends to be more loony and more extreme, but big enough to
>>describe itself as "the moral majority" and not have that claim seriously
>>challenged.
>
>"Moral Majority" was the name of a specific pressure group, founded by
>the Baptist televangelist Jerry Falwell and the right-wing Catholic
>activist Paul Weyrich. It disbanded in the late 1980s (says
>Wikipedia), and its role in politics passed on to other groups and
>right-wing think tanks, most notably Ralph Reed's "Christian
>Coalition".
>
>These people are in general so confused about what their Lord and
>Savior actually said about morality that they believe anything to the
>political left of Pat Buchanan is inherently unChristian. (Actually,
>I don't think the leaders are confused at all, just liars.)
>Unfortunately, under many different guises they continue to be a
>significant political force in the U.S. to this day, and explains a
>great deal of the opposition to Obama's agenda (which would be
>considered center-right in nearly any other country), particularly his
>signature health-care law (which was adopted, nearly lock stock and
>barrel, from the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank).
who expressed the views about the living wage being anti-Christian.
>These religious groups (not the Catholic ones, which at least retain
>some shred of dignity, but many of the independent southern and
>western Protestant ones) are also the prime purveyors of the so-called
>"prosperity Gospel", which holds (I am caricaturing here) that a
>believer's good economic fortune is a sign of the Lord's favor. (You
>might legitimately ask about what the nonbeliever's good economic
>fortune is a sign of... I don't know how they answer that question.)
read some of their stuff, watches some of their videos and even (a couple of
times) heard some of them preach. But I don't think they are the right-wing
ones who are opposed to a "living wage". They would not think about that at
all. For them, true Christians don't need to bother about wages at all; all
they have to do is "name it and claim it".
>I do despair sometimes that we will ever get our political system back
>from the loonies. I know that these things come in cycles, but at
>such a critical juncture in history, I would prefer to have multiple
>options at the ballot box.
Even though we have a proportional representation system, rather than a
"winner-takes-all" one, our range of political choices is narrowing all the
time.
Jerry Friedman
Oct 6, 2012, 10:35:24 AM10/6/12
to
On Oct 6, 2:33 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
...
> I( don't think you are caricaturing the prosperity gospel people at all. I've
> read some of their stuff, watches some of their videos and even (a couple of
> times) heard some of them preach. But I don't think they are the right-wing
> ones who are opposed to a "living wage".
,,,
It would still help if you said what you mean by a living wage, with
or without quotation marks, and what you mean by being opposed to it.
--
Jerry Friedman
...
> I( don't think you are caricaturing the prosperity gospel people at all. I've
> read some of their stuff, watches some of their videos and even (a couple of
> times) heard some of them preach. But I don't think they are the right-wing
> ones who are opposed to a "living wage".
It would still help if you said what you mean by a living wage, with
or without quotation marks, and what you mean by being opposed to it.
--
Jerry Friedman
Garrett Wollman
Oct 6, 2012, 11:48:32 AM10/6/12
to
In article <40dd6797-7b54-491e...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
"Living wage" is generally used by activists to mean a minimum wage
set high enough such that one can work a single full-time job and
still get by without depending on charity -- i.e., any job pays enough
to afford housing, food[1], health care[2], and transportation[3]. A
number of high-cost-of-living cities, like San Francisco, have
considered local ordinances of this nature, either for their own
public workers or for workers in general. In a city like Boston that
would mean roughly doubling the minimum wage.
There are all sorts of economic issues with this, since we live in a
market economy with free movement of both capital and labor, but as a
moral proposition it is very attractive to many on the left.
-GAWollman
[1] For many of the people who support this idea, organic food.
[2] For many of the people who support this idea, "alternative
medicine".
[3] Public.
set high enough such that one can work a single full-time job and
still get by without depending on charity -- i.e., any job pays enough
to afford housing, food[1], health care[2], and transportation[3]. A
number of high-cost-of-living cities, like San Francisco, have
considered local ordinances of this nature, either for their own
public workers or for workers in general. In a city like Boston that
would mean roughly doubling the minimum wage.
There are all sorts of economic issues with this, since we live in a
market economy with free movement of both capital and labor, but as a
moral proposition it is very attractive to many on the left.
-GAWollman
[1] For many of the people who support this idea, organic food.
[2] For many of the people who support this idea, "alternative
medicine".
[3] Public.
Steve Hayes
Oct 6, 2012, 1:57:56 PM10/6/12
to
expression in English, and we say such things as "earning a living".
The opposite of a living wage would be a "starvation wage" -- where the wage
paid doesn't provide enough for basic nutritional needs.
I already explained what I meant by being opposed to it -- those who claimed
to be Christian and maintained that paying a living wage was "anti-Christian".
Jerry Friedman
Oct 6, 2012, 2:18:05 PM10/6/12
to
On Oct 6, 9:48 am, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> In article <40dd6797-7b54-491e-b247-e507070e0...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Anyway, that does appear to be what Steve means. The discussion Steve
is talking about is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox/browse_frm/thread/d79cfa394f49b2d6/
It's not about living wages or paying them; as I suspected and as you
explained, it's about the minimum-wage laws known as "living-wage
laws". The original post was the article I linked to earlier, which
is by a Catholic priest and a minister in the Christian Reformed
Church. They probably should have titled their article something like
"'Living wage' laws are anti-Christian" instead of just "'Living wage'
is anti-Christian".
> A
> number of high-cost-of-living cities, like San Francisco, have
> considered local ordinances of this nature, either for their own
> public workers or for workers in general. In a city like Boston that
> would mean roughly doubling the minimum wage.
Santa Fe has such an ordinance.
> There are all sorts of economic issues with this, since we live in a
> market economy with free movement of both capital and labor, but as a
> moral proposition it is very attractive to many on the left.
As far as I've heard, it hasn't caused any economic problems in Santa
Fe, but I don't follow the local news very closely. Also, movement of
capital isn't very easy in practice in Santa Fe.
> [1] For many of the people who support this idea, organic food.
I hadn't heard that one.
> [2] For many of the people who support this idea, "alternative
> medicine".
>
> [3] Public.
--
Jerry Friedman
> In article <40dd6797-7b54-491e-b247-e507070e0...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 6, 2:33 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >...
>
> >> I( don't think you are caricaturing the prosperity gospel people at all. I've
> >> read some of their stuff, watches some of their videos and even (a couple of
> >> times) heard some of them preach. But I don't think they are the right-wing
> >> ones who are opposed to a "living wage".
> >,,,
>
> >It would still help if you said what you mean by a living wage, with
> >or without quotation marks, and what you mean by being opposed to it.
>
> "Living wage" is generally used by activists to mean a minimum wage
> set high enough such that one can work a single full-time job and
> still get by without depending on charity -- i.e., any job pays enough
> to afford housing, food[1], health care[2], and transportation[3].
For oneself, or with some number of children?
> >On Oct 6, 2:33 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >...
>
> >> I( don't think you are caricaturing the prosperity gospel people at all. I've
> >> read some of their stuff, watches some of their videos and even (a couple of
> >> times) heard some of them preach. But I don't think they are the right-wing
> >> ones who are opposed to a "living wage".
> >,,,
>
> >It would still help if you said what you mean by a living wage, with
> >or without quotation marks, and what you mean by being opposed to it.
>
> "Living wage" is generally used by activists to mean a minimum wage
> set high enough such that one can work a single full-time job and
> still get by without depending on charity -- i.e., any job pays enough
> to afford housing, food[1], health care[2], and transportation[3].
Anyway, that does appear to be what Steve means. The discussion Steve
is talking about is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox/browse_frm/thread/d79cfa394f49b2d6/
It's not about living wages or paying them; as I suspected and as you
explained, it's about the minimum-wage laws known as "living-wage
laws". The original post was the article I linked to earlier, which
is by a Catholic priest and a minister in the Christian Reformed
Church. They probably should have titled their article something like
"'Living wage' laws are anti-Christian" instead of just "'Living wage'
is anti-Christian".
> A
> number of high-cost-of-living cities, like San Francisco, have
> considered local ordinances of this nature, either for their own
> public workers or for workers in general. In a city like Boston that
> would mean roughly doubling the minimum wage.
> There are all sorts of economic issues with this, since we live in a
> market economy with free movement of both capital and labor, but as a
> moral proposition it is very attractive to many on the left.
Fe, but I don't follow the local news very closely. Also, movement of
capital isn't very easy in practice in Santa Fe.
> [1] For many of the people who support this idea, organic food.
> [2] For many of the people who support this idea, "alternative
> medicine".
>
> [3] Public.
--
Jerry Friedman
Oct 6, 2012, 3:12:42 PM10/6/12
to
On Oct 6, 11:52 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 07:35:24 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 6, 2:33 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >...
>
> >> I( don't think you are caricaturing the prosperity gospel people at all. I've
> >> read some of their stuff, watches some of their videos and even (a couple of
> >> times) heard some of them preach. But I don't think they are the right-wing
> >> ones who are opposed to a "living wage".
> >,,,
>
> >It would still help if you said what you mean by a living wage, with
> >or without quotation marks, and what you mean by being opposed to it.
>
> I would have thought the meaning is pretty obvious. It's a fairly common
> expression in English, and we say such things as "earning a living".
But what you were saying about it didn't make sense.
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 07:35:24 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 6, 2:33 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >...
>
> >> I( don't think you are caricaturing the prosperity gospel people at all. I've
> >> read some of their stuff, watches some of their videos and even (a couple of
> >> times) heard some of them preach. But I don't think they are the right-wing
> >> ones who are opposed to a "living wage".
> >,,,
>
> >It would still help if you said what you mean by a living wage, with
> >or without quotation marks, and what you mean by being opposed to it.
>
> I would have thought the meaning is pretty obvious. It's a fairly common
> expression in English, and we say such things as "earning a living".
> The opposite of a living wage would be a "starvation wage" -- where the wage
> paid doesn't provide enough for basic nutritional needs.
medical care?
> I already explained what I meant by being opposed to it -- those who claimed
> to be Christian and maintained that paying a living wage was "anti-Christian".
living wage were anti-Christian, which is quite different. I didn't
get to the part where anyone said that paying such a wage is anti-
Christian, but I suppose there are people who will believe anything.
--
Jerry Friedman
Adam Funk
Oct 6, 2012, 3:13:53 PM10/6/12
to
On 2012-10-06, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <fmiv689a3760qen1n...@4ax.com>,
> Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>But it also tends to be more loony and more extreme, but big enough to
>>describe itself as "the moral majority" and not have that claim seriously
>>challenged.
>
> "Moral Majority" was the name of a specific pressure group, founded by
> the Baptist televangelist Jerry Falwell and the right-wing Catholic
> activist Paul Weyrich. It disbanded in the late 1980s (says
> Wikipedia), and its role in politics passed on to other groups and
> right-wing think tanks, most notably Ralph Reed's "Christian
> Coalition".
Bumper sticker from back then: "The Moral Majority is neither!"
> In article <fmiv689a3760qen1n...@4ax.com>,
> Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>But it also tends to be more loony and more extreme, but big enough to
>>describe itself as "the moral majority" and not have that claim seriously
>>challenged.
>
> "Moral Majority" was the name of a specific pressure group, founded by
> the Baptist televangelist Jerry Falwell and the right-wing Catholic
> activist Paul Weyrich. It disbanded in the late 1980s (says
> Wikipedia), and its role in politics passed on to other groups and
> right-wing think tanks, most notably Ralph Reed's "Christian
> Coalition".
--
Classical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture,
indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us
doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and
Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995)
Charles Bishop
Oct 6, 2012, 7:34:37 PM10/6/12
to
In article
<b589f597-b93a-4f1c...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Jerry
Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 6, 9:48=A0am, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>> In article <40dd6797-7b54-491e-b247-e507070e0...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>l. I've
>> >> read some of their stuff, watches some of their videos and even (a cou=
>ple of
>> >> times) heard some of them preach. But I don't think they are the right=
apply to everyone?
[snip the extra, leave the footnotes]
>
>> [1] For many of the people who support this idea, organic food.
>
>I hadn't heard that one.
>
>> [2] For many of the people who support this idea, "alternative
>> medicine".
>>
>> [3] Public.
--
charles
<b589f597-b93a-4f1c...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Jerry
Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 6, 9:48=A0am, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>> In article <40dd6797-7b54-491e-b247-e507070e0...@a17g2000yqg.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Jerry Friedman =A0<jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 6, 2:33 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> >...
>>
>> >> I( don't think you are caricaturing the prosperity gospel people at al=
>> >On Oct 6, 2:33 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> >...
>>
>l. I've
>> >> read some of their stuff, watches some of their videos and even (a cou=
>ple of
>> >> times) heard some of them preach. But I don't think they are the right=
>-wing
>> >> ones who are opposed to a "living wage".
>> >,,,
>>
>> >It would still help if you said what you mean by a living wage, with
>> >or without quotation marks, and what you mean by being opposed to it.
>>
>> "Living wage" is generally used by activists to mean a minimum wage
>> set high enough such that one can work a single full-time job and
>> still get by without depending on charity -- i.e., any job pays enough
>> to afford housing, food[1], health care[2], and transportation[3].
>
>For oneself, or with some number of children?
>
>Anyway, that does appear to be what Steve means. The discussion Steve
>is talking about is here:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox/browse_=
>> >> ones who are opposed to a "living wage".
>> >,,,
>>
>> >It would still help if you said what you mean by a living wage, with
>> >or without quotation marks, and what you mean by being opposed to it.
>>
>> "Living wage" is generally used by activists to mean a minimum wage
>> set high enough such that one can work a single full-time job and
>> still get by without depending on charity -- i.e., any job pays enough
>> to afford housing, food[1], health care[2], and transportation[3].
>
>For oneself, or with some number of children?
>
>Anyway, that does appear to be what Steve means. The discussion Steve
>is talking about is here:
>
>frm/thread/d79cfa394f49b2d6/
>
>It's not about living wages or paying them; as I suspected and as you
>explained, it's about the minimum-wage laws known as "living-wage
>laws". The original post was the article I linked to earlier, which
>is by a Catholic priest and a minister in the Christian Reformed
>Church. They probably should have titled their article something like
>"'Living wage' laws are anti-Christian" instead of just "'Living wage'
>is anti-Christian".
>
>> A
>> number of high-cost-of-living cities, like San Francisco, have
>> considered local ordinances of this nature, either for their own
>> public workers or for workers in general. =A0In a city like Boston that
>
>It's not about living wages or paying them; as I suspected and as you
>explained, it's about the minimum-wage laws known as "living-wage
>laws". The original post was the article I linked to earlier, which
>is by a Catholic priest and a minister in the Christian Reformed
>Church. They probably should have titled their article something like
>"'Living wage' laws are anti-Christian" instead of just "'Living wage'
>is anti-Christian".
>
>> A
>> number of high-cost-of-living cities, like San Francisco, have
>> considered local ordinances of this nature, either for their own
>> would mean roughly doubling the minimum wage.
>
>Santa Fe has such an ordinance.
What is the minimum someone must be paid to work in Santa Fe? Does this
>
>Santa Fe has such an ordinance.
apply to everyone?
[snip the extra, leave the footnotes]
>
>> [1] For many of the people who support this idea, organic food.
>
>I hadn't heard that one.
>
>> [2] For many of the people who support this idea, "alternative
>> medicine".
>>
>> [3] Public.
--
Jerry Friedman
Oct 6, 2012, 7:26:28 PM10/6/12
to
> <b589f597-b93a-4f1c-9cec-4f2ddacd9...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Jerry
> >> A
> >> number of high-cost-of-living cities, like San Francisco, have
> >> considered local ordinances of this nature, either for their own
> >> public workers or for workers in general. =A0In a city like Boston that
> >> would mean roughly doubling the minimum wage.
>
> >Santa Fe has such an ordinance.
>
> What is the minimum someone must be paid to work in Santa Fe? Does this
> apply to everyone?
10.29 an hour, said to be the highest in the country.
http://www.santafenm.gov/index.aspx?NID=84
You might also be interested in
http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/print-edition/2012/03/23/santa-fes-minimum-wage-highest-in.html?page=all
--
Jerry Friedman
> Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 6, 9:48=A0am, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
...
> >On Oct 6, 9:48=A0am, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
> >> A
> >> number of high-cost-of-living cities, like San Francisco, have
> >> considered local ordinances of this nature, either for their own
> >> public workers or for workers in general. =A0In a city like Boston that
> >> would mean roughly doubling the minimum wage.
>
> >Santa Fe has such an ordinance.
>
> What is the minimum someone must be paid to work in Santa Fe? Does this
> apply to everyone?
http://www.santafenm.gov/index.aspx?NID=84
You might also be interested in
http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/print-edition/2012/03/23/santa-fes-minimum-wage-highest-in.html?page=all
--
Jerry Friedman
Robert Bannister
Oct 6, 2012, 7:35:53 PM10/6/12
to
On 7/10/12 3:12 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:52 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 07:35:24 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
>> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 2:33 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>
>>>> I( don't think you are caricaturing the prosperity gospel people at all. I've
>>>> read some of their stuff, watches some of their videos and even (a couple of
>>>> times) heard some of them preach. But I don't think they are the right-wing
>>>> ones who are opposed to a "living wage".
>>> ,,,
>>
>>> It would still help if you said what you mean by a living wage, with
>>> or without quotation marks, and what you mean by being opposed to it.
>>
>> I would have thought the meaning is pretty obvious. It's a fairly common
>> expression in English, and we say such things as "earning a living".
>
> But what you were saying about it didn't make sense.
>
>> The opposite of a living wage would be a "starvation wage" -- where the wage
>> paid doesn't provide enough for basic nutritional needs.
>
> What if it pays enough for basic nutritional needs and shelter but not
> medical care?
That surely depends on the availability of free medical care. If a
> On Oct 6, 11:52 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 07:35:24 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
>> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 2:33 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>
>>>> I( don't think you are caricaturing the prosperity gospel people at all. I've
>>>> read some of their stuff, watches some of their videos and even (a couple of
>>>> times) heard some of them preach. But I don't think they are the right-wing
>>>> ones who are opposed to a "living wage".
>>> ,,,
>>
>>> It would still help if you said what you mean by a living wage, with
>>> or without quotation marks, and what you mean by being opposed to it.
>>
>> I would have thought the meaning is pretty obvious. It's a fairly common
>> expression in English, and we say such things as "earning a living".
>
> But what you were saying about it didn't make sense.
>
>> The opposite of a living wage would be a "starvation wage" -- where the wage
>> paid doesn't provide enough for basic nutritional needs.
>
> What if it pays enough for basic nutritional needs and shelter but not
> medical care?
person is working and can't obtain medical care when necessary, then
that person will eventually be unable to continue working, so the wage
was not a "living wage".
This is not the same as earning enough so that you can save, nor does
the medical part cover non-essential medical care, but either you can
live on the wage or you can't. Children, of course, complicate the
matter considerably, but of course the anti-living wage people wouldn't
countenance abortion.
--
Robert Bannister
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages