Gerry Studds' Partner Denied Pension
David Kaye
partner of 15 years was denied Gerry's pension. Had the partner been a
straight woman, she'd be entitled to it even if she were a floozy he'd
met in a fleabag motel and had been married to for just a single day.
Who do we have to thank for this? The "Defense of Marriage" act,
ceremoniously signed into law with great fanfare by....Bill Clinton
with Hillary Rodham Clinton at his side. (Note that Hillary, in an
attempt to make herself more palatable to the rightwing, no longer uses
her last name, Rodham.)
I cannot in good conscience support Hillary Rodham Clinton or anyone
who endorses her. I'll sit out the next election if she runs. With
Democrats like this who needs enemies?
JTEM
David Kaye wrote:
> I cannot in good conscience support Hillary
> Rodham Clinton or anyone who endorses her.
You're a great example of why the lunatic Reich
wing has done so well.
About 20 years ago they determined that they were
never going to have genuine lunatics running in every
race. Originally as a compromise, but really as a
stroke of genius, they made the decision to support
the more lunatic of the two candidates in every
race, even if neither was noticably insane.
Pure genius.
See, instead of asking voters and candidates (especially
candidates) to take a quantum leap -- completely
redefining themselves -- they made it clear that heaps
of money/support could be had for merely nudging
yourself a little past the other guy.
Think about it. You can spend 100 years trying to get
people to completely redefine themselves in one fell
swoop, without success, or you can ask people to
compromise, just a little, in exchange for a lot of
potential support.
When we get rid of people like you we'll have a chance
at recapturing some of the ground we lost since 2000.
Gregory Gadow
> Former U.S. Representative Gerry Studds died the other day. His
> partner of 15 years was denied Gerry's pension. Had the partner been a
> straight woman, she'd be entitled to it even if she were a floozy he'd
> met in a fleabag motel and had been married to for just a single day.
"Partner" is entirely incorrect. He and Dean Hara were legally married in
Massachussetts on May 24, 2004, one week after equal marriage became legal
in that state. The correct term is "husband."
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
Help defend marriage in Washington state!
http://www.wa-doma.org
Gregory Gadow
> David Kaye wrote:
>
> > I cannot in good conscience support Hillary
> > Rodham Clinton or anyone who endorses her.
>
> You're a great example of why the lunatic Reich
> wing has done so well.
Indeed. We must shut up and obediently vote for any and all Democrats,
no matter how bad they may be. We must never, EVER question the actions
of any elected Democrat or Democratic candidate. We are not allowed to
call Democrats on their bigotry, lies or betrayals. Any word, either
spoken or written, that calls a Democrat to task will be held as proof
that we are traitors to our community.
Fuck you, JTEM. I refuse to support treat the people who force me to sit
at the back of the bus with any respect, just because they condescend to
let me on the bus in the first place. A vote for the lesser of two evils
is still a vote for evil.
If anyone, of any party -- including the Democratic Party -- wants my
vote, they had damned well better EARN it.
Mr. Clean
<tech...@serv.net> spake thusly:
>David Kaye wrote:
>
>> Former U.S. Representative Gerry Studds died the other day. His
>> partner of 15 years was denied Gerry's pension. Had the partner been a
>> straight woman, she'd be entitled to it even if she were a floozy he'd
>> met in a fleabag motel and had been married to for just a single day.
>
>"Partner" is entirely incorrect. He and Dean Hara were legally married in
>Massachussetts on May 24, 2004, one week after equal marriage became legal
>in that state. The correct term is "husband."
then i hope his husband sues for pension.
name withheld (hiding from trolls)
--
I will not be posting here again
with the exception of
all the times I post here again
-Bertha, AMOE 06/27/06
Mike McKinley
news:453CCC86...@serv.net...
Get you, Miss Gurl.
When Utopia is proclaimed throughout the land, please let me know first.
JTEM
Gregory Gadow wrote:
> Indeed. We must shut up and [...]
Map it out for me. Pretend this is important, that a
lot rides on the outcome.
Map out your strategy from me. Mention any real-world
examples you base this on.
If you've got real ideas based knowledge and careful
consideration I'd be happy to discuss them. But you
don't. Instead, all you've got is a jerking knee and
some wishful thinking.
Unlike you, I presented a model that HAS WORKED.
I presented a strategy that is PROVEN TO BE
SUCCESSFUL.
What have you got? Show me.
I say you're completely full of shit. Go on, prove me
wrong. Lay out that strategy for me. Do it.
Yeah, right...
Ellen Evans
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
[]
>A vote for the lesser of two evils
>is still a vote for evil.
So don't vote. *That'll* show 'em.
--
--
Ellen Evans If my life wasn't funny, it would
je...@panix.com just be true, and that's unacceptable.
Carrie Fisher
David W. Fenton
If you have a choice between a party that wants you to sit in the
back of the bus and a party that wants to run *over* you with the
bus, don't you think it's better to side with the one that at least
lets you ride?
To me, it's the height of idiocy to even consider voting for a
Republican as long as that party remains beholden to interests that
hate gay people and want to wipe them out of public life (if not
stamp them out of existence entirely).
There are other Democrats running for President, so it oughtn't be
hard to find one to vote for in good conscience, such as Russ
Feingold.
But he's not likely to get the nomination, so your choice might be
voting for Hillary Clinton or voting for Rudolph Giuliani. The
choice there is quite clear, seems to me -- Hillary should be the
obvious one to get your vote, no matter how much you may feel you
have to hold your nose.
(and if you didn't live in NYC during the Giuliani administration,
you're probably not aware of just how incredibly bad he would be as
a President)
--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Gregory Gadow
> In article <453CCC86...@serv.net>,
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
>
> []
>
> >A vote for the lesser of two evils
> >is still a vote for evil.
>
> So don't vote. *That'll* show 'em.
If you would be so kind as to suggest an alternative to voting for evil, I
would be in your debt.
Willyboy
>
> Ellen Evans wrote:
>>
>> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
>>>
>> So don't vote. *That'll* show 'em.
>>
> If you would be so kind as to suggest an alternative to voting for
> evil, I would be in your debt.
>
lesser evil is effectively a vote for the greater evil. Or
at least it is at this time in this country.
Not voting really isn't an option, IMO. Certainly it's not
an option for me.
--
Bill Halstead | "If growing up means it will be
| beneath my dignity to climb a tree,
Cincinnati, Ohio | I'll never grow up; no Sir, not me."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill is a charter member of the Peter Pan Club. Ask him about it.
Frank McQuarry
Gregory Gadow wrote:
> Ellen Evans wrote:
>
> > In article <453CCC86...@serv.net>,
> > Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> >
> > []
> >
> > >A vote for the lesser of two evils
> > >is still a vote for evil.
> >
> > So don't vote. *That'll* show 'em.
>
> If you would be so kind as to suggest an alternative to voting for evil, I
> would be in your debt.
>
Speaking as someone who has held his nose several times as I pulled the lever,
you're looking at this all wrong. It's not really a choice between two evils
but a choice between two directions. Yes they may both be uphill, but one is
usually easier to navigate than the other.
If you want the country to move to the left, then we need to get left leaning
candidates in office. You may not like all of that candidate's positions on
issues, but if it, at least gets the country in the general direction you want
it to, then it is worth your time to vote for them.
These days, I think the most important direction for the country to move is
toward campaign reform. We need wrest control of our country away from Big
Money.
Ellen Evans
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
>Ellen Evans wrote:
>
>> In article <453CCC86...@serv.net>,
>> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
>>
>> []
>>
>> >A vote for the lesser of two evils
>> >is still a vote for evil.
>>
>> So don't vote. *That'll* show 'em.
>
>If you would be so kind as to suggest an alternative to voting for evil, I
>would be in your debt.
I live in the world as it is.
David W. Fenton
news:453F74BF...@earthlink.net:
> If you want the country to move to the left, then we need to get
> left leaning candidates in office. You may not like all of that
> candidate's positions on issues, but if it, at least gets the
> country in the general direction you want it to, then it is worth
> your time to vote for them.
It's not a matter about moving left. It's about restoring the
balance of power outlined in the Constitution. With a chief
executive like Bush, we need at least one house of Congress to be
controlled by an opposition party.
And many of the Democrats running are not "left" and I can't see how
any of the policies in Pelosi's "100 Days" plan are "leftist" in any
sense but the devolved one that has been in place since the Reagan
revolution moved the center to where the far right used to be.
The Democrats are CENTRISTS in a political environment in which
there is no significant power on the left, and a whole system tilted
toward radical far-right political interests.
Mike McKinley
news:eho54l$ep9$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> I live in the world as it is.
<Blanche DuBois>
I don't say what's true, but what ought to be true, and if that's a sin,
then let me be *damned* for it!
</Blanche DuBois>
Ellen Evans
David W. Fenton <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
[]
>And many of the Democrats running are not "left" and I can't see how
>any of the policies in Pelosi's "100 Days" plan are "leftist" in any
>sense but the devolved one that has been in place since the Reagan
>revolution moved the center to where the far right used to be.
Frank said "move left" not be left. To even get to the center we have to
move left of where we are now.
Kathryn Burlingham
>
> But he's not likely to get the nomination, so your choice might be
> voting for Hillary Clinton or voting for Rudolph Giuliani.
The idea that either of them is likely to be nominated seems to me to be
one of those New York perspective problems. Giuliani is barely a blip on
this side of the country, and if the Dems nominate Clinton they're even
more self-destructive than I think they are.
Max Vasilatos
I think the Dems have retrospectively (and understandably)
utopianized the Clinton presidency and now are having a hard
time dealing with the Clinton name without genuflecting.
Lotta pundity folks are saying she actually has a good chance.
Max
Kathryn Burlingham
>
> I think the Dems have retrospectively (and understandably)
> utopianized the Clinton presidency and now are having a hard
> time dealing with the Clinton name without genuflecting.
> Lotta pundity folks are saying she actually has a good chance.
I'm keeping hope alive that this is the usual blow-hardiness of
punditry, not that the Dems are so deluded that they really think
Clinton has a chance in hell of winning the general election. I also
kinda wish she'd give up on the notion herself, because I think she'd be
a better Senator for it.
But hey, if I'm wrong, I will celebrate.
Frank McQuarry
Ellen Evans wrote:
> In article <Xns986784FFB9139f9...@127.0.0.1>,
> David W. Fenton <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> []
>
> >And many of the Democrats running are not "left" and I can't see how
> >any of the policies in Pelosi's "100 Days" plan are "leftist" in any
> >sense but the devolved one that has been in place since the Reagan
> >revolution moved the center to where the far right used to be.
>
> Frank said "move left" not be left. To even get to the center we have to
> move left of where we are now.
Precisely. We've drifted so far right that centrist positions look pretty
lefty these days.
Like I have posted before, just take a look at the policies of the Nixon
administration and grow nostalgic for how lefty things used to be.
David W. Fenton
news:ehol2p$ca4$1...@reader2.panix.com:
> In article <Xns986784FFB9139f9...@127.0.0.1>,
> David W. Fenton <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> []
>
>>And many of the Democrats running are not "left" and I can't see
>>how any of the policies in Pelosi's "100 Days" plan are "leftist"
>>in any sense but the devolved one that has been in place since the
>>Reagan revolution moved the center to where the far right used to
>>be.
>
> Frank said "move left" not be left. To even get to the center we
> have to move left of where we are now.
I'd say there's a terminology problem, since the public thinks the
word "left" describes an absolute political position ("liberal"),
not a relative term. It's sad that this is the case, but it is the
way it is.
David W. Fenton
news:12jvthj...@corp.supernews.com:
Both are polling pretty well nationwide. I believe Giuliani is the
front-runner and Clinton polled higher than McCain in a recent poll,
to many people's astonishment.
I don't want Hillary to be nominated. I think she'd be a fabulous
President, but I don't think she has a prayer of being elected.
Giuliani, well, most people nationwide know about him from his 9/11
"heroics," but don't know about the horrors of the previous 7.5
years of his administration, or how much his "heroics" were thrust
upon him because of bad decisions in locating the Office of
Emergency Management right next to an obvious terror target (on the
EIGHTH FLOOR, ferchrissakes!), even though the relevant committees
had recommended that the command center be built in downtown
Brooklyn. Had Giuliani been sitting in the command center in
Brooklyn, the images that stuck with everyone would not have
occurred.
And he's just a terrible and angry man.
Ruth Lawrence
> In article <Xns986784FFB9139f9...@127.0.0.1>,
> David W. Fenton <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> []
>
>>And many of the Democrats running are not "left" and I can't see how
>>any of the policies in Pelosi's "100 Days" plan are "leftist" in any
>>sense but the devolved one that has been in place since the Reagan
>>revolution moved the center to where the far right used to be.
>
> Frank said "move left" not be left. To even get to the center we have to
> move left of where we are now.
Gezakly, and we in Oz are in the same situation.
Ruth, who is mightly glad our voting is compulsory and on paper
Rod Williams
> > I live in the world as it is.
Mike McKinley:
> <Blanche DuBois>
> I don't say what's true, but what ought to be true, and if that's a sin,
> then let me be *damned* for it!
> </Blanche DuBois>
<Baby Jane>
But y'are, Blanche, y'are.
</Baby Jane>
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
> In article <Xns986784FFB9139f9...@127.0.0.1>,
> David W. Fenton <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> []
>
> >And many of the Democrats running are not "left" and I can't see how
> >any of the policies in Pelosi's "100 Days" plan are "leftist" in any
> >sense but the devolved one that has been in place since the Reagan
> >revolution moved the center to where the far right used to be.
>
> Frank said "move left" not be left. To even get to the center we have to
> move left of where we are now.
Being Lib Dem in the UK used to mean "in the centre." Now, Labour are to
the right of the Lib Dems on most social and fiscal issues. The
Conservatives are now slightly to the right of Labour, moving slightly
to the left in recent years, especially on social issues. Broadly
speaking, I'd put the UK Conservative party as it is now to the left of
the US Democratic party. Oh my, I think I'll go shopping.
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://www.davidhorne.net/pictures.html http://soundjunction.org
protos...@hotmail.com
No matter how bad Bush's ratings may go, the challenge for the
Democratic Party will be to refrain from throwing the election away as
much as attempting to win it.
Are they leagues better than the Republicans, yes. But having shot
themselves in the foot so many times, their only target left may be the
head.
Obviously, I've just about lost all faith in the Dems.
Jack
Gregory Gadow
> Gregory Gadow wrote:
>
> > Ellen Evans wrote:
> >
> > > In article <453CCC86...@serv.net>,
> > > Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > []
> > >
> > > >A vote for the lesser of two evils
> > > >is still a vote for evil.
> > >
> > > So don't vote. *That'll* show 'em.
> >
> > If you would be so kind as to suggest an alternative to voting for evil, I
> > would be in your debt.
> >
>
> Speaking as someone who has held his nose several times as I pulled the lever,
> you're looking at this all wrong. It's not really a choice between two evils
> but a choice between two directions.
Both of which are heading to places I don't want to go. But when I vote for
someone who *is* going my way, I get insulted and have my patriotism called into
question because I am not following my marching orders.
Gregory Gadow
The problem is, the entire political continuum has been steadily moving
right over the last 20 years. What the "centrist" Democrats stand for
today was hard-core conservatism when I was in high school.
Michael Thomas
The problem with "I don't want to go to hell in your
handbasket" FSVO "your" (commie, religious reich, etc)
isn't a very snazzy political philosophy if you could call
it that at all. That's pretty much what the Dems are now,
as were the Repugs from FDR to LBJ. The problem is that
there's a lot of appeal to gridlock and the status quo
because anything "new" is just as likely to be corrupted
by the machine regardless of whether it was an attractive
idea. The attempts, however, leading to even worse
outcomes, and the gradual decline of our empire. There
will never be another Enlightenment; indeed just a respite
from the Enduncement would be relief, but that's not a
political theory, so it can't be sustaining. There is no
hope.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
E Unum Pluribus: California out of the US.
Mike McKinley
news:v7mz7jd...@fasolt.mtcc.com...
> E Unum Pluribus: California out of the US.
Darling, I love your sentiment, but have you checked your Latin?
Frank McQuarry
Mike McKinley wrote:
What? You've never ridden a pluribus?
Mike McKinley
news:4540E6DB...@earthlink.net...
One of the few thrills I've yet to experience.
David W. Fenton
news:1161854686.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> No matter how bad Bush's ratings may go, the challenge for the
> Democratic Party will be to refrain from throwing the election
> away as much as attempting to win it.
>
> Are they leagues better than the Republicans, yes. But having
> shot themselves in the foot so many times, their only target left
> may be the head.
Well, the 2008 elections will require something more than THROW OUT
THE REPUBLICANS as a reason to vote, and I worry.
> Obviously, I've just about lost all faith in the Dems.
Well, there are a lot of good ideas in the Democratic caucuses in
Congress, and if they put together a legislative agenda based on it,
and fight for it, it won't really matter if they succeed, or fail up
against Bush's veto or Senate filibuster. If they *tried* to do
things that the American people approve of and Republicans prevented
it, they can run against the Republicans again. But if they get the
legislation through, then they'll be fine.
So, either way, as long as the Dems follow through on the ideas they
have put forth already, then I think they'll be fine in 2008.
David W. Fenton
news:4540B9B6...@serv.net:
Yes, and that's political reality.
They are still the last best hope for the future of the nation. Get
the reactionary radical right morons out of power and put the
centrists in power. Then we can work towards building a real left.
Anything else is just throwing elections back to the Republicans
(e.g., Nader in 2000).
David W. Fenton
news:12k1fb2...@news.supernews.com:
> Gregory Gadow:
>
>>The problem is, the entire political continuum has been
>>steadily moving right over the last 20 years.
>
> Uh, *at least* 53+ years (since Truman left office).
I wouldn't say it's been "steady" during that entire time.
It was steady before 1980, and then after Reagan, things shifted
very hard right. At the same time, media consolidation under large
conglomerates with interests other than public service and news
gathering caused the press to become much less proactive in telling
it like it is -- they just accepted the new hard-right narrative
that the Republicans were the mainstream.
The 1994 election put in power a bunch of people who were much more
right-wing and radical than Reagan, but they took a while to
consolidate their power. The Bush administration is the fruit of
their labor (the Delays, the Armeys, the Gingriches).
After the huge Reagan shift, the movement changed back to something
more steady. The Clinton administration continued it, though,
because of the media's acceptance of the Republican narrative that
Clinton was liberal, when he was, in fact, a Conservative Democrat
(further right than Nixon in terms of policy initiatives).
9/11 mucked everything up and I'm not sure what I'd say about things
since then. The government has moved harder right than ever, but I
don't think the people have gone with them.
David Kaye
> "Partner" is entirely incorrect. He and Dean Hara were legally married in
> Massachussetts on May 24, 2004, one week after equal marriage became legal
> in that state. The correct term is "husband."
Regardless, you're quibbling about a point that I hadn't made. The
POINT is that Bill Clinton with Hillary (Rodham) Clinton at his side,
ceremoniously signed the "Defense of Marriage" Act into law, and THAT
was the very law cited by the federal government to deny Dean Hara, his
spouse of 15 (count 'em FIFTEEN) years the pension given to other-sex
spouses.
The POINT is that a vote for Hillary (formerly Rodham) Clinton is a
vote against gay people.
David Kaye
> Precisely. We've drifted so far right that centrist positions look pretty
> lefty these days.
For anybody who wasn't around then, a look at the history books
regarding Richard Nixon, who was not only a Republican president but
was also chair of the Republican party (something that a sitting
president rarely is asked to do), will show that Richard Nixon comes
across like a stark raving lefty compared to just about any Democrat
today.
Nixon enforced the Civil Rights Bill signed by Johnson. He was
instrumental in starting the Environmental Protection Agency, opened
trade with communist China, enacted price controls when inflation got
out of hand. He did things that no Democrat today would do.
What I'm getting at is that Democrats, at the state and national level
at least, are not worthy of my vote. Neither are Republicans. Nor
Libertarians. And the Greens (I'm a Green) don't have enough oomph to
do anything. So, I simply don't vote for candidates in state and
national elections. I do vote for local candidates, however.
I'll be damned if I'm going to give any Democrat the self-satisfaction
that the number of votes they get is any kind of mandate to stay the
course of hate crimes against gay folks.
Suitably Dented
>What I'm getting at is that Democrats, at the state and national level
>at least, are not worthy of my vote. Neither are Republicans. Nor
>Libertarians. And the Greens (I'm a Green) don't have enough oomph to
>do anything. So, I simply don't vote for candidates in state and
>national elections. I do vote for local candidates, however.
If you voted for your preferred Green candidate, the Green party would
start developing some oomph.
--
Piglet, vote, dammit!
Michael Thomas
Chris F Waigl
> "Frank McQuarry" <fmcq...@earthlink.net> enquired of Miss MC:
>> What? You've never ridden a pluribus?
>
> One of the few thrills I've yet to experience.
It's like a posh omnibus. You didn't miss much:
C-back in-B
from Dublin
Jed Davis
I mentioned that a while ago, and got a typical non-response. But now
I find:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002297.html
Interesting, because I thought it was Brin's _Earth_ that I'd
remembered the dualized motto thing from.
What would be funny is if Latin were non-positional enough for MT's
word-swap to do more or less nothing, but I don't know that the
Ancient Latins were quite that mad.
--
(let ((C call-with-current-continuation)) (apply (lambda (x y) (x y)) (map
((lambda (r) ((C C) (lambda (s) (r (lambda l (apply (s s) l)))))) (lambda
(f) (lambda (l) (if (null? l) C (lambda (k) (display (car l)) ((f (cdr l))
(C k))))))) '((#\J #\d #\D #\v #\s) (#\e #\space #\a #\i #\newline)))))
Christian Hansen
>"Mike McKinley" <mp...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>
>> "Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote in message
>> news:v7mz7jd...@fasolt.mtcc.com...
>>> E Unum Pluribus: California out of the US.
>>
>> Darling, I love your sentiment, but have you checked your Latin?
>
>I mentioned that a while ago, and got a typical non-response. But now
>I find:
>
>http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002297.html
>
>Interesting, because I thought it was Brin's _Earth_ that I'd
>remembered the dualized motto thing from.
>
>What would be funny is if Latin were non-positional enough for MT's
>word-swap to do more or less nothing, but I don't know that the
>Ancient Latins were quite that mad.
Of course, there's this URL:
http://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4055114
which refers to an Economist story about the EU that had a fractured Latin
heading purporting to be "Out of one, many".
Chris "Solus unus." Hansen
--
Chris Hansen | chrishansenhome at btinternet dot com
|http://www.christianphansen.com or
|http://www.livejournal.com/users/chrishansenhome/
Mike McK: "*Every*body's seen *my* dick!"
Frank McQ: "Is there some sort of carnival go-cart ride to it inside Denali?"
Kathryn Burlingham
Oh, me too, though it doesn't stop me from sending them money when
Kerry, Kennedy or Obama email me. After all, I don't think we're going
to cure poverty, but I send money for that too.
Kathryn Burlingham
> The problem is that
> there's a lot of appeal to gridlock and the status quo
> because anything "new" is just as likely to be corrupted
> by the machine regardless of whether it was an attractive
> idea.
I just want the Christian fanatics that have infested most federal
agencies to be booted back to church school fundraising.
> There will never be another Enlightenment;
Sure there will. There will be a global pandemic, and there will be
another Enlightenment. In which order and on what timeline we can't
know, but they will happen. In the meantime, we illuminate our
manuscripts, people!
Michael Palmer
<jd...@panix.com> wrote:
>"Mike McKinley" <mp...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>
>> "Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote in message
>> news:v7mz7jd...@fasolt.mtcc.com...
>>> E Unum Pluribus: California out of the US.
>>
>> Darling, I love your sentiment, but have you checked your Latin?
>
>I mentioned that a while ago, and got a typical non-response. But now
>I find:
>
>http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002297.html
The only problem with this entire thread is that "e pluribus unum"
doesn't mean "one out of many". "Pluribus" is the comparative degree
("more") of "multi" ("many"). Its use here indicates no direct
comparison ("one out of more than" what?), and in such cases the
comparative is properly translated "rather", "somewhat",
"considerably", or "excessively". "E pluribus unum" means "from
rather a lot [too many], one", so simply reversing the words gives
you, "out of one, rather a lot [too many]".
"Out of one, many" = "multa ex uno"
>Interesting, because I thought it was Brin's _Earth_ that I'd
>remembered the dualized motto thing from.
>
>What would be funny is if Latin were non-positional enough for MT's
>word-swap to do more or less nothing, but I don't know that the
>Ancient Latins were quite that mad.
In fact, Mike's word-swap doesn't do anything to the original Latin
meaning. Latin mottos depend almost exclusively on declension and
conjugation for their meaning; word order is largely irrelevant, and
is often determined by metrical considerations.
--
Michael Palmer
Claremont, California
mpa...@panix.com
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 02:55:53 -0400, in soc.motss, Jed Davis
> <jd...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> "Mike McKinley" <mp...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>>
>>> "Michael Thomas" <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:v7mz7jd...@fasolt.mtcc.com...
>>>> E Unum Pluribus: California out of the US.
>>>
>>> Darling, I love your sentiment, but have you checked your Latin?
>>
>> I mentioned that a while ago, and got a typical non-response. But
>> now I find:
>>
>> http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002297.html
>
> The only problem with this entire thread is that "e pluribus unum"
> doesn't mean "one out of many". "Pluribus" is the comparative degree
> ("more") of "multi" ("many"). Its use here indicates no direct
> comparison ("one out of more than" what?), and in such cases the
> comparative is properly translated "rather", "somewhat",
> "considerably", or "excessively". "E pluribus unum" means "from
> rather a lot [too many], one", so simply reversing the words gives
> you, "out of one, rather a lot [too many]".
>
> "Out of one, many" = "multa ex uno"
>
[deletions]
I think you will find in some context that plures does indeed translate
properly as many or a great number, as per Charlton T. Lewis, /An Elementary
Latin Dictionary/.
The phrase itself is usually traced to a poem falsely attributed to Virgil,
"Moretum", describing a farmer's lunch:
"It manus in gyrum: paulatim singula vires
deperdunt proprias; color est e pluribus unus,
nec totus viridis, quia lactea frusta repugnant,
nec de lacte nitens, quia tot variatur ab herbis."
"His hand goes in circles: little by little
strength destroys each single individual; from many there is
one color, neither wholly green, which fights against the milky-
white in vain, nor pressing upon the white, which is changed
by so many herbs."
--
Frank in Seattle
____
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
Christian Hansen
>In fact, Mike's word-swap doesn't do anything to the original Latin
>meaning. Latin mottos depend almost exclusively on declension and
>conjugation for their meaning; word order is largely irrelevant, and
>is often determined by metrical considerations.
Word order in Latin verse is, of course, entirely dependent on the metre,
which makes declining nouns and conjugating verbs quite important in working
out what the poet is trying to say.
In Latin prose, word order is usually subject-objects-verb. However, word
order plays a part in figuring out which word or words the author considered
most or least important in the sentence. So in prose word order is somewhat
important in determining the sense of the author and varying the usual word
order sometimes carries some weight in translation.
Chris "A Latinist by training, software test manager by trade." Hansen
Jed Davis
> Jed Davis <jd...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> What would be funny is if Latin were non-positional enough for MT's
>> word-swap to do more or less nothing, but I don't know that the
>> Ancient Latins were quite that mad.
>
> In fact, Mike's word-swap doesn't do anything to the original Latin
> meaning. Latin mottos depend almost exclusively on declension and
> conjugation for their meaning; word order is largely irrelevant, and
> is often determined by metrical considerations.
Interesting; I'd know about that feature with verbs, but didn't want
to assume it'd apply to another part of speech, even if similar in
some ways. (Contast Japanese, where the to/from/in/at/of sort of
connectives are the same kind of item as the subject and object
markers, and where the verb or other head item generally goes last.
Thus my confusion.)
Michael Thomas
> mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) writes:
>
>> Jed Davis <jd...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What would be funny is if Latin were non-positional enough for MT's
>>> word-swap to do more or less nothing, but I don't know that the
>>> Ancient Latins were quite that mad.
>>
>> In fact, Mike's word-swap doesn't do anything to the original Latin
>> meaning. Latin mottos depend almost exclusively on declension and
>> conjugation for their meaning; word order is largely irrelevant, and
>> is often determined by metrical considerations.
>
> Interesting; I'd know about that feature with verbs, but didn't want
> to assume it'd apply to another part of speech, even if similar in
> some ways. (Contast Japanese, where the to/from/in/at/of sort of
> connectives are the same kind of item as the subject and object
> markers, and where the verb or other head item generally goes last.
> Thus my confusion.)
Monsewers assume that my overriding Intention was correct Latin.
Monsewers would, of course, be wrong.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
Robert S. Coren
I'm guessing that all parties concerned were well aware of that, and
don't care a whole lot. Is there anyone posting to Usenet who doesn't
like to show off now and then?
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"[We] sowed this, and now we must weed it and reap." --Ben Rosengart
Ellen Evans
[]
>>> In fact, Mike's word-swap doesn't do anything to the original Latin
>>> meaning. Latin mottos depend almost exclusively on declension and
>>> conjugation for their meaning; word order is largely irrelevant, and
>>> is often determined by metrical considerations.
Making Virgil impossible to read, for example.
[]
> Monsewers assume that my overriding Intention was correct Latin.
> Monsewers would, of course, be wrong.
My guess? Your assumption that they are interested in your overriding
Intention - and not some random chance to linguisti-cize - is also
somewhat erroneous.
--
--
Ellen Evans If my life wasn't funny, it would
je...@panix.com just be true, and that's unacceptable.
Carrie Fisher
Mike McKinley
news:ei82ui$ovv$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <v7slh4j...@fasolt.mtcc.com>,
> Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>>Jed Davis <jd...@panix.com> writes:
>>> mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) writes:
>>>> In fact, Mike's word-swap doesn't do anything to the original Latin
>>>> meaning. Latin mottos depend almost exclusively on declension and
>>>> conjugation for their meaning; word order is largely irrelevant, and
>>>> is often determined by metrical considerations.
> Making Virgil impossible to read, for example.
>> Monsewers assume that my overriding Intention was correct Latin.
>> Monsewers would, of course, be wrong.
> My guess? Your assumption that they are interested in your overriding
> Intention - and not some random chance to linguisti-cize - is also
> somewhat erroneous.
I only want Anna Highman to get her biscuits in the oven and quit
foolin' with all this Latin nonsense.
Suitably Dented
>>> mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) writes:
>>>> In fact, Mike's word-swap doesn't do anything to the original Latin
>>>> meaning. Latin mottos depend almost exclusively on declension and
>>>> conjugation for their meaning; word order is largely irrelevant, and
>>>> is often determined by metrical considerations.
>Making Virgil impossible to read, for example.
Of arms and a man I sing.
--
Piglet, whose dog's full name is Karma Virumque Cano
Max Vasilatos
> Is there anyone posting to Usenet who doesn't
> like to show off now and then?
<wild hand waving> ME!!! ME!!! I don't!
Maximillion
Ellen Evans
Suitably Dented <pig...@panix.com> wrote:
>je...@panix.com (Ellen Evans), in article
><ei82ui$ovv$1...@reader2.panix.com>, dixit:
>>>> mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) writes:
>>>>> In fact, Mike's word-swap doesn't do anything to the original Latin
>>>>> meaning. Latin mottos depend almost exclusively on declension and
>>>>> conjugation for their meaning; word order is largely irrelevant, and
>>>>> is often determined by metrical considerations.
>
>>Making Virgil impossible to read, for example.
>
>Of arms and a man I sing.
I remember sitting on the floor of my room whining "goddamit, where is the
fucking verb?"
Michael Palmer
pig...@panix.com (Suitably Dented) wrote:
>je...@panix.com (Ellen Evans), in article <ei82ui$ovv$1...@reader2.panix.com>, dixit:
>>>> mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) writes:
>>>>> In fact, Mike's word-swap doesn't do anything to the original Latin
>>>>> meaning. Latin mottos depend almost exclusively on declension and
>>>>> conjugation for their meaning; word order is largely irrelevant, and
>>>>> is often determined by metrical considerations.
>
>>Making Virgil impossible to read, for example.
>
>Of arms and a man I sing.
Or, as one schoolgirl is said to have translated it, "I long for the
arms of a man".
M if she's gonna have the arms she might as well have the legs as well
P
Christian Hansen
>In article <ei8gaa$av$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>Suitably Dented <pig...@panix.com> wrote:
>>je...@panix.com (Ellen Evans), in article
>><ei82ui$ovv$1...@reader2.panix.com>, dixit:
>>>>> mpa...@panix.com (Michael Palmer) writes:
>>>>>> In fact, Mike's word-swap doesn't do anything to the original Latin
>>>>>> meaning. Latin mottos depend almost exclusively on declension and
>>>>>> conjugation for their meaning; word order is largely irrelevant, and
>>>>>> is often determined by metrical considerations.
>>
>>>Making Virgil impossible to read, for example.
>>
>>Of arms and a man I sing.
My Virgil class at Columbia was taught by a follower of the "Aesthetic
Realism" cult. I ascribe my coldness to even the thought of visiting Virgil
again to having to deal with her theories about Virgil and Catullus.
I wondered whether it was still alive and kicking; Google produced
http://www.aestheticrealism.org/about.htm . Oh well.
>I remember sitting on the floor of my room whining "goddamit, where is the
>fucking verb?"
>--
Chris "It's probably in Troy." Hansen
Jed Davis
> Suitably Dented <pig...@panix.com> wrote:
>> je...@panix.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:
[latiny stuff]
>>> Making Virgil impossible to read, for example.
>>
>> Of arms and a man I sing.
>
> I remember sitting on the floor of my room whining "goddamit, where is the
> fucking verb?"
rec.int-fiction.erotica is that ===========> way.
--
let p = List.map (fun c k _-> k (print_char c))
in List.fold_right (fun f a _ -> f a) (List.map2
(fun f g k -> f (g k) ()) (p ['J';'d';'D';'v';'s'])
(p ['e';' ';'a';'i';'\n'])) ignore ()
Michael Thomas
> In article <v7slh4j...@fasolt.mtcc.com>,
> Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>> Monsewers assume that my overriding Intention was correct Latin.
>> Monsewers would, of course, be wrong.
>
> My guess? Your assumption that they are interested in your overriding
> Intention - and not some random chance to linguisti-cize - is also
> somewhat erroneous.
That's nice, but one needs to keep in mind that this is
all about me.
Ellen Evans
Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>je...@panix.com (Ellen Evans) writes:
>> In article <v7slh4j...@fasolt.mtcc.com>,
>> Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>>> Monsewers assume that my overriding Intention was correct Latin.
>>> Monsewers would, of course, be wrong.
>>
>> My guess? Your assumption that they are interested in your overriding
>> Intention - and not some random chance to linguisti-cize - is also
>> somewhat erroneous.
>
> That's nice, but one needs to keep in mind that this is
> all about me.
Well, of course.
Mike McKinley
> In article <v7odrrj...@fasolt.mtcc.com>,
> Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>>je...@panix.com (Ellen Evans) writes:
>>> In article <v7slh4j...@fasolt.mtcc.com>,
>>> Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>>>> Monsewers assume that my overriding Intention was correct Latin.
>>>> Monsewers would, of course, be wrong.
>>> My guess? Your assumption that they are interested in your overriding
>>> Intention - and not some random chance to linguisti-cize - is also
>>> somewhat erroneous.
>> That's nice, but one needs to keep in mind that this is
>> all about me.
> Well, of course.
The Magic Kingdom, whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is
nowhere.
Christian Hansen
wrote:
I'm sorry, the responder to invitations for extremely cheap shots is over
there ------------> (The Frozen North)
Chris "Making a wisecrack about Denali being the centre of attention when you
are en pointe was just too much even for me.[1]" Hansen
[1] Just as pussy[2] jokes are beneath me too.
[2] That other post is that <-------------- way.
Jed Davis
> Monsewers assume that my overriding Intention was correct Latin.
> Monsewers would, of course, be wrong.
> --
> Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
> E Unum Pluribus: California out of the US.
And you're assuming that we haven't long since given up on caring what
your authorial intent might or might not have been. Anyway, given the
amount of whining my .signatures have gotten, it's only fair that I do
unto others.
David Kaye
address the fact that it was BILL CLINTON who not only signed but
touted the "Defense of Marriage" Act. HE was responsible for Gerry
Studds' husband not receiving Gerry's pension, as any woman married to
Gerry (even for a day) would have received.
You folks aren't talking about the FAILURE of the Democratic party to
serve our needs. You instead are probably showing up wherever Bill
Clinton is whoring for some local candidate and cheering him on.
Just remember, a vote for Hillary is a vote against GBLT people because
she was at his side, smiling when he signed the fucking bill into law.
She's every bit as culpable as he is.
Ellen Evans
David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It's interesting how you folks go on about other topics and don't
>address the fact that it was BILL CLINTON who not only signed but
>touted the "Defense of Marriage" Act. HE was responsible for Gerry
>Studds' husband not receiving Gerry's pension, as any woman married to
>Gerry (even for a day) would have received.
Uh, DOMA did not make that happen.
But please, don't let *that* stop you.
Ann Burlingham
> I wondered whether it was still alive and kicking; Google produced
> http://www.aestheticrealism.org/about.htm . Oh well.
Er. Is it a cult?
--
What use was it having all that money if you could never sit still
or just watch your cattle eating grass?
- Alexander McCall Smith, _The No.1 Ladies' Detective Agency_
Christian Hansen
>Christian Hansen <chrisha...@notrash.btinternet.com.invalid> writes:
>
>> I wondered whether it was still alive and kicking; Google produced
>> http://www.aestheticrealism.org/about.htm . Oh well.
>
>Er. Is it a cult?
I believe so. They acted like one, anyway.
Chris "Another fine mess I escaped by the skin of my teeth." Hansen
David Kaye
>
> Uh, DOMA did not make that happen.
>
The "Defense of Marriage Act" was the SPECIFIC ACT cited by the federal
government in denying Gerry Studd's husband of 15 years from collecting
his pension, a pension he'd be entitled to if he had been born female
and had married him in Vegas the night before he died.
But don't let FACTS get in the way of your support for rightwinger Bill
Clinton and your other sycophantic Democratic party ravings, Ellen. We
all know that you'd march to the gas chambers if it meant supporting
Bill or Hillary.
Want references? You don't care, but here they are for anybody who is
willing to look at the FACTS:
http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10526 (left-leaning article)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/20/MNGALLSOEP1.DTL
(centrist)
http://www.wdcmedia.com/newsArticle.php?ID=2085 (right-leaning article)
Ellen Evans
David Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ellen Evans wrote:
>>
>> Uh, DOMA did not make that happen.
>>
>
>The "Defense of Marriage Act" was the SPECIFIC ACT cited by the federal
>government in denying Gerry Studd's husband of 15 years from collecting
>his pension, a pension he'd be entitled to if he had been born female
>and had married him in Vegas the night before he died.
It was to hand. Had it not been to hand there are plenty of other ways
they could have arrived at the same end.
Kathryn Burlingham
I took advantage of a beautiful crisp day to walk up to Mt. Tabor,
thrice around the reservoirs, and back home by way of the wine and pet
stores. Two bottles of a Clos du Papillon that I'm really looking
forward to--this is to serve at our annual holiday feast--and a
well-reviewed cabernet that I can't remember at the moment and I won't
run down to the cellar to check because I'm about to be whisked off to
dinner. So this post is hereby truncated, I have received the call.
Oh, three cans of cat health food, too. Luckily I took a backpack.
David Kaye
> It was to hand. Had it not been to hand there are plenty of other ways
> they could have arrived at the same end.
Until the DOMA there was nothing on the books. You're just an
apologist for Clinton's rightwing policies.
Ellen Evans
Mike McKinley
news:1164050751....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Why don't you crawl back into the woodwork where you belong?
David Kaye
>
> Why don't you crawl back into the woodwork where you belong?
Can't face the truth about the Clintons, eh? Another apologist for the
Democrats, eh? It's your own funeral. Deal with it.
Linda Yanney
We're go much better off today than we were back then.
LJ in IC
--
Linda Yanney
LJ in IC
--