OT: Billboards That Look Back
Maria C.
lately has been spotty.
From The New York Times online:
Billboards That Look Back
By Stephanie Clifford
Published: May 31, 2008
Begin quote===In advertising these days, the brass ring goes to those
who can measure everything -- how many people see a particular
advertisement, when they see it, who they are. All of that is easy on
the Internet, and getting easier in television and print.
Billboards are a different story. For the most part, they are still a
relic of old-world media, and the best guesses about viewership numbers
come from foot traffic counts or highway reports, neither of which
guarantees that the people passing by were really looking at the
billboard, or that they were the ones sought out.
Now, some entrepreneurs have introduced technology to solve that
problem. They are equipping billboards with tiny cameras that gather
details about passers-by - their gender, approximate age and how long
they looked at the billboard. These details are transmitted to a central
database.===end quote
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/31/business/media/31billboard.html?scp=1&sq=tiny+cameras&st=nyt
or
http://tinyurl.com/6frno5
Registration with The NYTimes is required, but there's no charge.
As I understand it, this is already well underway in Europe and
Singapore, but it's very new in the US.
The article says that the camera images are not stored, but it would be
very easy to do so. Plus, local police (and not-so-local police) could
insist that records be kept for crime-solving reasons.
Many people feel this is an invasion of privacy. (I'm among those many
people.)
The article is interesting -- and maybe scary and infuriating, as well.
I recommend taking a look.
--
Maria C.
"People who live in glass houses shouldn't cavort nude on top of the
piano doing gorilla impersonations." [No attribution found as yet, not
that I've tried awfully hard.]
Dan Leifker
> Now, some entrepreneurs have introduced technology to solve that
> problem. They are equipping billboards with tiny cameras that gather
> details about passers-by - their gender, approximate age and how long
> they looked at the billboard. These details are transmitted to a central
> database.===end quote
Very interesting, especially the part about the gender of the billboard
"user."
A friend of mine once helped to develop software for a computerized
dating company, and their research found huge differences in the gender
of the users (who would browse through the database looking for
boyfriends and girlfriends). The final system presented diametrically
opposite user interfaces for each gender.
To log in, you had to create your own profile first, so the gender of
each login user was known.
Women would log in and see a user interface that flipped though pages
showing the raw data of the men: age, education, occupation, income,
prior marital status, etc. At the bottom of each page was a button
labeled "Show photo."
Men would log in, but their user interface simply flipped through photos
of women. At the bottom of each page was a button labeled "Show data."
Apparently each gender has its own sequence of filters when sorting
through information. And in fact (to bring this thread back to a.u.e.)
when I was in college it seemed as if women professors and men
professors gave me different types of comments on my English essays,
perhaps because different filter sequences were kicking in while they
read my dry writing.
dleifker
R H Draney
>
>Now, some entrepreneurs have introduced technology to solve that
>problem. They are equipping billboards with tiny cameras that gather
>details about passers-by - their gender, approximate age and how long
>they looked at the billboard. These details are transmitted to a central
>database.===end quote
Somebody notify Angelyne!...r
--
What good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone?
tinwhistler
[snip]
.
> "People who live in glass houses shouldn't cavort nude on top of the
> piano doing gorilla impersonations." [No attribution found as yet, not
> that I've tried awfully hard.]
As for attribution, I think it was Confucius -- but he also said,
"Don't quote me."
The aspiration to have one's "picture on a billboard" takes on a new
sense, what with the possible recording ability of the look-back
cameras. Shouldn't we have a short-form word for such cameras? How
about "OYF" -- On Your Face (or, the Yiddish interjection with an F
for good measure)?
--
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
The Grammer Genious
> <...>
> Many people feel this is an invasion of privacy. (I'm among those many
> people.)
>
> The article is interesting -- and maybe scary and infuriating, as well. I
> recommend taking a look.
If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you object to our noble patriotic
corporations using billboards, data mining, and other surveillance
techniques to record your personal information and to track your habits and
activities? How else can we stay economically robust, and beat the Chinese?
Besides, our government might need the information (from those corporations,
who will be granted immunity) to fight terrorism.
Freedom isn't free, ya know.
Pat Durkin
"The Grammer Genious" <waup...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nYk0k.55$hH.23@trndny07...
Yeah. It's nothing left to lose.
>
>
Maria C.
Your sarcasm is wasted on me, P. (Is it "P," isn't it? Or have I gone
nuts?)
I am simply not the kind of "patriot" you may think I am. My theory: "My
country, right or wrong: If it's right, keep it right; if it's wrong,
make it right." However, I do not subscribe to ultraleftist policies.
And I believe that people /can indeed/ go very wrong while claiming it's
their right to do what they want because they are Americans.
I could go on and on, but I'll give everyone a break and not do so. I
probably won't follow up on the thread either, at least not for a
while -- I'll be gone for several days.
And, yes, I'm still a Republican, even though there are some Dems that I
think are okay and mean well (most of the time).
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
> The Grammer Genious wrote, in part:
>> Freedom isn't free, ya know.
>
> Yeah. It's nothing left to lose.
I can hear Janis singing that (in my mind) even as we post. Now, I'll
have to dig out the record and listen to it in full.
--
Maria C.
The Grammer Genious
> their right to do what they want because they are Americans.
I agree. And of course those people going very wrong while claiming it's
their right to do it can and do include many of the people running the U.S.
government. The principle applies to everybody.
Chuck Riggs
It's those dirty Commies, especially the Chinese ones, who will surely
sap our strength, we must remain most vigilant against.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>The Grammer Genious wrote:
>> Maria C. wrote:
>>> <...>
>>> Many people feel this is an invasion of privacy. (I'm among those
>>> many people.)
>>>
>>> The article is interesting -- and maybe scary and infuriating, as
>>> well. I recommend taking a look.
>>
>> If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you object to our noble
>> patriotic corporations using billboards, data mining, and other
>> surveillance techniques to record your personal information and to
>> track your habits and activities? How else can we stay economically
>> robust, and beat the Chinese?
>> Besides, our government might need the information (from those
>> corporations, who will be granted immunity) to fight terrorism.
>>
>> Freedom isn't free, ya know.
>
>Your sarcasm is wasted on me, P. (Is it "P," isn't it? Or have I gone
>nuts?)
>
>I am simply not the kind of "patriot" you may think I am. My theory: "My
>country, right or wrong: If it's right, keep it right; if it's wrong,
>make it right." However, I do not subscribe to ultraleftist policies.
>And I believe that people /can indeed/ go very wrong while claiming it's
>their right to do what they want because they are Americans.
Being a liberal does not necessarily mean one is a libertarian.
>I could go on and on, but I'll give everyone a break and not do so. I
>probably won't follow up on the thread either, at least not for a
>while -- I'll be gone for several days.
>
>And, yes, I'm still a Republican, even though there are some Dems that I
>think are okay and mean well (most of the time).
Calling Democrats Dems will win no more arguments than a Democrat
calling Republicans Pubs or Cans would, so let's not be catty in the
hallowed political halls of alt usage English.
CDB
[war between the states]
> Calling Democrats Dems will win no more arguments than a Democrat
> calling Republicans Pubs or Cans would, so let's not be catty in the
> hallowed political halls of alt usage English.
No, indeed. But, just to consider these party nicknames as a language
thing, I don't feel "Pubs" or "Cans" matches the dismissiveness of
"Dems". I propose "Rubs".
Well, the Rubboes started it.
Paul Wolff
>Maria C. filted:
>>
>>Now, some entrepreneurs have introduced technology to solve that
>>problem. They are equipping billboards with tiny cameras that gather
>>details about passers-by - their gender, approximate age and how long
>>they looked at the billboard. These details are transmitted to a central
>>database.===end quote
>
>Somebody notify Angelyne!...r
>
--
Paul
Maria C.
> Maria C wrote, in part:
>>
>> And, yes, I'm still a Republican, even though there are some Dems
>> that I think are okay and mean well (most of the time).
>
> Calling Democrats Dems will win no more arguments than a Democrat
> calling Republicans Pubs or Cans would, so let's not be catty in the
> hallowed political halls of alt usage English.
"Dem" is an informal abbreviation of "Democrat." One source says the use
of "Dem" for "Democrat" began in the late 19th Century.
I certainly do not mean the term to be offensive or "catty." If I want
to be offensive, I will do better than "Dem." And if I want to be
"catty," you'll feel severely scratched. (Or maybe not - I'm out of
practice.)
Abbreviations for Republicans: "Reps" doesn't work because "Reps" is
generally understood to refer to "Representatives" (in Congress). "Pubs"
or "Cans" could be used, I guess, but most people wouldn't recognize
either term as referring to Republicans. Context would help, sure, but
probably not enough for "Pubs" or "Cans" to catch on.
Maybe "the Right" is best, as it is the companion term of "the Left."
(And we'd rather like it because "right" is also the opposite of
"wrong.")
"The Rs" would be okay; your group could be "The Ds." Those
abbreviations have the beauty of simplicity, they take up less space,
and they're already used in listings ("Levin, D-Mich").
Anyway, speaking only for myself and to use an old saying, call me
anything -- just don't call me late for dinner.
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
See my reply to Chuck. Also: I do not understand why "Dems" is seen as
"catty" or "dismissive." Is it because of "deze, doze, and dem" ("these,
those, and them")? No? Then what? It's a shortening of the name.
Say, I just thought: call us "Reeps." That corresponds with "Dems" --
the first syllable plus an "s" for the plural.
Maria C., Reep
Roland Hutchinson
> Say, I just thought: call us "Reeps." That corresponds with "Dems" --
> the first syllable plus an "s" for the plural.
And as ye have sewn, so shall ye reep (come November).
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Unknown
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:58:01 GMT, Roland Hutchinson posted:
>Maria C. wrote:
>
>> Say, I just thought: call us "Reeps." That corresponds with "Dems" --
>> the first syllable plus an "s" for the plural.
>
>And as ye have sewn, so shall ye reep (come November).
That one has me in stitches!
--
roses are #FF0000
violets are #0000FF
all my base
are belong to you
Nick
> CDB wrote:
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>
>> [war between the states]
>>
>>> Calling Democrats Dems will win no more arguments than a Democrat
>>> calling Republicans Pubs or Cans would, so let's not be catty in the
>>> hallowed political halls of alt usage English.
>>
>> No, indeed. But, just to consider these party nicknames as a language
>> thing, I don't feel "Pubs" or "Cans" matches the dismissiveness of
>> "Dems". I propose "Rubs".
>>
>> Well, the Rubboes started it.
>
> See my reply to Chuck. Also: I do not understand why "Dems" is seen as
> "catty" or "dismissive." Is it because of "deze, doze, and dem" ("these,
> those, and them")? No? Then what? It's a shortening of the name.
Because they decided it was. We do this one every few weeks at the
moment, but this time it's political rather than efnik.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
Isn't "the right" in America citizens and their representatives who
think the direction of the nation is best served by the defense
conglomerate, with business being a major player and the Bill of
Rights being secondary to Law and Order, which they always capitalize?
If so, questions of right and wrong don't enter into it, only opinions
and different interpretations of the Constitution from those people on
the left [of the aisle].
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
> Isn't "the right" in America citizens and their representatives who
> think the direction of the nation is best served by the defense
> conglomerate, with business being a major player and the Bill of
> Rights being secondary to Law and Order, which they always capitalize?
No. That is an exaggeration and a distortion. Need I say who, most
likely, pushes that interpretation of what "the Right" believes?
Reminder for everyone: Just as there are nuts on the fringes of the
Left, there are nuts on the fringes of the Right. Also, there are many
views in both directions. Not all Democrats have identical views and the
same goes for Republicans.
What I want and think:
I want (not necessarily in this order) our country to be safe,
bountiful, a haven for those who need it, productive, and ever mindful
of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and what they
mean.
I want fairness in our elections, not dead people "voting" as they've
done so often in major cities. Chicago and Detroit come to mind, and the
Democratic Party benefitted the most in those cities. As for Florida in
2000, I do not believe at all that the Presidential election was stolen.
I also believe that Gore would have been a terrible President (and I
think he's more than a little wacky). 2004: Again, "W" won. Kerry
didn't. Plain and simple, no cheating. And Kerry's another one who, I
think, is not a good fit for the White House.
"Law and Order": I want laws to be fair and applied equally to all. I
think sometimes our local "leaders" are on ego trips, and that Zero
Tolerance policies are, in most cases, nothing but an "out" for those
who cannot make rational decisions. That sort of thing seems to be more
prominent among Democrats. (BICBW.)
I think that one of the reasons our prisons are overcrowded is that the
penal codes (like Zero Tolerance policies) are unreasonable. Prison
terms for "possession" come to mind.
I think (this is old-fashioned of me) that dress codes in schools should
be tolerant of ethnic dress and intolerant when it comes to dressing
like pint-sized sluts and gang members. (How one dresses can set the
tone for how one acts.)
I think that people who need help should get it, and that people who
"milk the system" should not be allowed to do so. How this can be
accomplished varies from place to place, but it seems that the "milking"
goes on more in large cities.
I don't know how all my "wants" (and there are more than what I've
listed) can be met, but I know that my views are not uncommon among my
Republican friends. We are not the wild-eyed loonies that the "other
side" would have the world believe.
Finally, Iraq: Overall, I think it was necessary, and could not have
been done quickly. As I've said before, Saddam Hussein deserved to be
executed for his many cruel and inhuman crimes against citizens of his
own country. The man was horrible. I wouldn't waste any pity on him.
"Weapons of Mass Destruction": The whole situation was not, to me, what
the Left paints it to have been. I believe that their version of the
situation was was driven purely by a desperate need to make "W" look
bad. Much of what they've said was exaggerated (and "nuanced") and they
were/are fully aware of that.
Politics is a dirty game, and I'm a Republican because I believe
Republicans to be more honest than Democrats.
There. Does that make your blood boil? Does that make me look stupid? I
can only encourage the people who see things differently than I do to
take a closer look at some of the issues. Read more than one newspaper,
read columnists from both "sides." Learn the whole story before picking
sides.
--
Maria C.
HVS
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> Isn't "the right" in America citizens and their representatives
>> who think the direction of the nation is best served by the
>> defense conglomerate, with business being a major player and
>> the Bill of Rights being secondary to Law and Order, which they
>> always capitalize?
>
> No. That is an exaggeration and a distortion. Need I say who,
> most likely, pushes that interpretation of what "the Right"
> believes?
>
> Reminder for everyone: Just as there are nuts on the fringes of
> the Left, there are nuts on the fringes of the Right. Also,
> there are many views in both directions. Not all Democrats have
> identical views and the same goes for Republicans.
>
> What I want and think:
-snip-
If people aren't going to take political discussions to an
appropriate forum, you'd think they could observe the common courtesy
of changing the subject line or marking it OT when the discussion
moves to this level of detail.
That's what I want and think.
CDB
> CDB wrote:
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> [war between the states]
>>> Calling Democrats Dems will win no more arguments than a Democrat
>>> calling Republicans Pubs or Cans would, so let's not be catty in
>>> the hallowed political halls of alt usage English.
>> No, indeed. But, just to consider these party nicknames as a
>> language thing, I don't feel "Pubs" or "Cans" matches the
>> dismissiveness of "Dems". I propose "Rubs".
>> Well, the Rubboes started it.
> See my reply to Chuck. Also: I do not understand why "Dems" is seen
> as "catty" or "dismissive." Is it because of "deze, doze, and dem"
> ("these, those, and them")? No? Then what? It's a shortening of the
> name.
Sounds like "dumb"? I don't actually hate Republicans: in the fifties
in conservative Bronxville I cleaned up at Hallowe'en as a ghost with
an "I like Ike" button for a nose. I deplore the changes that have
come to the GOP since then, but I would never doubt, even if I did not
have examples before me in this group, that there are still many
supporters of the party who are decent people of good will.
The same can even be said, I suppose, about the Conservative Reform
Alliance Party, presently in Government here; but I hate the CRAP, not
only because they are busily engaged in destroying my country's
reputation, but because they will wreck it financially and destroy any
chance of future common initiatives by crushing the federal aspect of
government in favour of the provinces, if they are allowed a majority.
Some of that rubs off on my attitude to the Rubboes (by your leave),
whose servants and apes they are.
> Say, I just thought: call us "Reeps." That corresponds with "Dems"
> -- the first syllable plus an "s" for the plural.
You could fly a frog flag instead of an elephant ensign. (Better
clear it with Quebec first.)
> Maria C., Reep
And from Detreep, too, as per your reply to Chuck mentioned above.
Congratulations on your acquisition of that run-of-the-mill rose bowl
we've all been fighting about.
The Grammer Genious
>
Why "our country"? You mean, to hell with everybody else? Sounds kind of
jingo.
I want EVERYBODY to be safe. And I want them to be safe from "our country"
as well.
tony cooper
You've found a molehill, built a mountain from it, buried a nit in it,
and picked it. "I want my ... to be safe" in no way excludes anyone.
To turn the table on you, why do you not want everybody to be healthy?
You did not mention that.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
mb
> been done quickly.
Necessary or not, it is a crime against peace. As per the United
States' opening address, “Our position is that whatever grievances a
nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo,
aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling these grievances
or for altering these conditions.”
> As I've said before, Saddam Hussein deserved to be
> executed for his many cruel and inhuman crimes against citizens of his
> own country. The man was horrible. I wouldn't waste any pity on him.
As many other people said, those who committed the crime of aggression
against Iraq, and those who enabled the criminals in Congress, still
have to be tried. The civilized countries have no such absurdity as
"death penalty" but you, a supporter of execution for being
"horrible", will have no difficulty in asking for the trial in the US
and death "penalty" for all those who lied and tricked to commit this
aggression of Iraq, a crime against peace.
Maria C.
> Politics is a dirty game, and I'm a Republican because I believe
> Republicans to be more honest than Democrats.
[...]
Now, before reading any responses to my post, I will admit that the
statement above goes too far. Let me just say that I've known honest
people of all political leanings, but Democrats tend to get my dander up
because of the things they say about Republicans.
Actually, not just the things they say. It's the attitude when they say
it, an attitude that screams "I'm smart and you're not," or "you can't
possibly know what you're talking about." Well, those folks can think
what they want, but they should also keep in mind how they seem to
others. (How? Well, not good.)
Maria, now going forward to read what others have said.
HVS
If you mean to imply that Maria's "wants" are platitudinously
shared by by everybody, I'll agree entirely.
A UK pundit, Simon Hoggart, often re-states his "bullshit test":
take a political statement, and re-phrase it as the opposite.
If you can't identify anyone who would maintain that opposite
position, it's self-evidently a non-statement.
So let's take:
"I want our country to be safe."
Tell me who actually says -- *says*, not "is said, by me, and by
omission, to imply"-- the following:
"I don't want our country to be safe."
or:
"I want our country to be unsafe."
or
"I want our country to be something other than safe."
Statements like "I want our country to be safe" aren't stances:
they're vacuous, meaningless platitudes, in all the worst senses of
that term.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
the Omrud
> Statements like "I want our country to be safe" aren't stances:
> they're vacuous, meaningless platitudes, in all the worst senses of
> that term.
I'm reminded of the utterly splendid "Mad Men", who were looking for a
new slogan for a brand of cigarettes. The owner when through the
process for turning tobacco leaves into fags, and they decided on "It's
Toasted!". He protested that all cigarette tobacco is toasted, but the
advertising men persuaded him that it didn't matter - his would be the
first brand to make the point and the public would think it was a
differentiator.
--
David
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
> ...
>> Finally, Iraq: Overall, I think it was necessary, and could not have
>> been done quickly.
>
> Necessary or not, it is a crime against peace. As per the United
> States' opening address, “Our position is that whatever grievances a
> nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo,
> aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling these grievances
> or for altering these conditions.”
I guess I didn't hear or see that opening address. I also don't know the
context. Care to share that last bit of information? (If not, I'll try
to look it up.)
>> As I've said before, Saddam Hussein deserved to be
>> executed for his many cruel and inhuman crimes against citizens of
>> his own country. The man was horrible. I wouldn't waste any pity on
>> him.
>
> As many other people said, those who committed the crime of aggression
> against Iraq, and those who enabled the criminals in Congress, still
> have to be tried. The civilized countries have no such absurdity as
> "death penalty" but you, a supporter of execution for being
> "horrible", will have no difficulty in asking for the trial in the US
> and death "penalty" for all those who lied and tricked to commit this
> aggression of Iraq, a crime against peace.
Your premise is faulty. And I doubt that any lies and tricks were on the
part of those who wished to rid the world of terrorism.
I must remind you of the trials after WWII. Were they wrong? Were the
Allies just picking on the German generals? Would Hitler's band have
become all "nice" if we had patted them on the head, and said, "go
ahead; go to your homes and enjoy life. We won't do anything about it"?
Please. A little realism is necessary.
I'm a peace-loving person, but there are times when that sort of thing
leads to more and more unfair treatment of innocent people. If people
don't speak up -- or if they just advocate being "civilized" against
those who would murder all the "infidels" (that's just an example in
today's world), then what is accomplished? Good, superior feelings on
the part of those who want to brag about their "civilized" attitudes?
And no feelings, good or bad, on the part of the newly dead?
War is not good. Neither is subjugation, slavery, and cruel deaths.
I don't apologize for us or our Allies of the past or the present.
There's little, if anything, to apologize for.
By the way, what would you do if your brother or son or wife or anyone
you know was fed, feet first, into a shredder (as Saddam's boys loved to
do)? Tell me how you would handle that.
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
>
> If people aren't going to take political discussions to an
> appropriate forum, you'd think they could observe the common courtesy
> of changing the subject line or marking it OT when the discussion
> moves to this level of detail.
>
> That's what I want and think.
Can't say I object. And you're right -- I should have changed the
Subject line. My appologies for not doing so.
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote
>> <...>
>> What I want and think:
>>
>> I want (not necessarily in this order) our country to be safe, <...>
>
> Why "our country"? You mean, to hell with everybody else? Sounds kind
> of jingo.
>
> I want EVERYBODY to be safe. And I want them to be safe from "our
> country" as well.
I'd like everyone to be safe, too. But saying "I want ... our country to
be safe" does not eliminate wanting others being safe.
As for 'them [being] safe from "our country" as well,' that works both
ways and all ways.
Actually, I want everyone and everything is this world (oh, yes, and
outer space and beyond) to be wonderful and to provide a perfect life
for all. You don't go that far in your "want" list, though. Why not?
Tongue partially in cheek,
Maria C.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> A UK pundit, Simon Hoggart, often re-states his "bullshit test":
> take a political statement, and re-phrase it as the opposite.
>
> If you can't identify anyone who would maintain that opposite
> position, it's self-evidently a non-statement.
>
> So let's take:
>
> "I want our country to be safe."
>
> Tell me who actually says -- *says*, not "is said, by me, and by
> omission, to imply"-- the following:
>
> "I don't want our country to be safe."
> or:
> "I want our country to be unsafe."
> or
> "I want our country to be something other than safe."
>
> Statements like "I want our country to be safe" aren't stances:
> they're vacuous, meaningless platitudes, in all the worst senses of
> that term.
On the other hand, when people, attacking tobacco companies, say that
the reason they do it is that "they care about people's health", they
appear to actually be saying something. But the people running the
tobacco companies presumably care about people's health, too. They'd
probably greatly prefer it if everybody was healthy. They just care
more about something else that seems (correctly, in that case) to the
person making the statement to run counter to that desire.
Saying "I oppose your doing X (or your support for X) because I care
about Y" means that I believe that X--when its consequences are
understood--is incompatible with caring (much) about Y. So either you
*don't* care (enough) about Y or you don't understand the implications
of X.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If only some crazy scientist
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |somewhere would develop a device
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that would allow us to change the
|channel on our televisions......
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | --"lazarus"
(650)857-7572
Maria C.
> tony cooper wrote:
They are sincere, and hardly vacuous or meaningless. /You/ think they
are as you describe, but you are not me, and I am not you, and I express
my hopes and wishes in ways that you might not think appropriate. (And
vice versa.)
Anyway, I'd like worldwide safety (and peace!), but I wasn't talking
about my hopes for the world. I was talking about my hopes for the
country I live in. Sometimes, I like to narrow the scope a bit.
(I'd like some good weather in my part of Michigan this summer, too.
There's no limit on the whereabouts of good weather, is there? I mean,
would good weather here have to mean bad weather in some other known
place? If so, that's not what I meant with my wish for good weather.)
None of the foregoing is said with ill will, by the way. I'm simply
responding to your assessment.
--
Maria C.
Irwell
Patient to Psychiatrist. "I think I have an inferority complex, Doctor"
Doctor examines patient. "No complex, you are just inferior".
-----
6/6/2008 4:43:04 PM
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
mb
> mb wrote:
...
> > As many other people said, those who committed the crime of aggression
> > against Iraq, and those who enabled the criminals in Congress, still
> > have to be tried. The civilized countries have no such absurdity as
> > "death penalty" but you, a supporter of execution for being
> > "horrible", will have no difficulty in asking for the trial in the US
> > and death "penalty" for all those who lied and tricked to commit this
> > aggression of Iraq, a crime against peace.
>
> Your premise is faulty.
The premise is the principles of Nuremberg: Agression when not
actively under attack, certified as aggression by even the absence of
a UNSC decision, is a crime against peace, the highest crime against
humanity. This is the one for which remnants of the Hitler government
and their accomplices were hanged. There is no possible discussion
about this.
> And I doubt that any lies and tricks were on the
> part of those who wished to rid the world of terrorism.
Their wishes are their own psychopathology and their own problem.
Their actions are a violation of the Constitution by blatant
misleading of Congress and the public and violation of Art 6 by open
violation of the UN Charter. Pooh-poohing this together with a
majority of the public just because you are in the War party does not
make it go away.
> I must remind you of the trials after WWII. Were they wrong?
No, the trials were held to punish exactly the same crime of
aggression and that law is exactly the one invoked.
> Were the
> Allies just picking on the German generals? Would Hitler's band have
> become all "nice" if we had patted them on the head, and said, "go
> ahead; go to your homes and enjoy life. We won't do anything about it"?
I see that we agree. You're absolutely right there. Bush and Company
repeated exactly the same crime, that of aggression when not actively
attacked by the government of Iraq, and deserve to be tried according
to exactly the same law.
> Please. A little realism is necessary.
The realistic part is this. Jsut because of a (criminal) refusal to
align the country to international law, it becomes necessary to try
the international criminals (Government and Congress) here in the US.
Too bad, US law (in contrast to the international court) still
considers the barbarian custom of "death penalty" but that is no
problem for you.
> I'm a peace-loving person, but there are times when that sort of thing
> leads to more and more unfair treatment of innocent people. If people
> don't speak up -- or if they just advocate being "civilized" against
> those who would murder all the "infidels" (that's just an example in
> today's world), then what is accomplished? Good, superior feelings on
> the part of those who want to brag about their "civilized" attitudes?
> And no feelings, good or bad, on the part of the newly dead?
Good. We agree: International aggression nmust be punished. The US
government cannot be let off the hook.
>
> War is not good. Neither is subjugation, slavery, and cruel deaths.
>
> I don't apologize for us or our Allies of the past or the present.
> There's little, if anything, to apologize for.
No, just try them according to international law.
> By the way, what would you do if your brother or son or wife or anyone
> you know was fed, feet first, into a shredder (as Saddam's boys loved to
> do)? Tell me how you would handle that.
How would you feel if you were tortured by Bush and Cheney (with Ms
Clinton voting to do even more) for years, without trial, then either
released without a word or fed into a shredder by their present Iraqi
employees? As happens every day under your eyes.
Aggression is still the highest crime against humanity.
As for intervention in the internal affairs of other countries, the
worst torturers and dictators have invariably been our best and best-
supported allies, including Hussein himself, so a little logic please.
mb
> > States' opening address, “Our position is that whatever grievances a
> > nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo,
> > aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling these grievances
> > or for altering these conditions.”
>
> I guess I didn't hear or see that opening address. I also don't know the
> context. Care to share that last bit of information?
Sorry. Opening statement of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, 1945,
Justice Jackson.
http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/Resource/document/DocJac14.htm
Maria C.
> Maria C. signed:
>
>> Maria C., Reep
>
> And from Detreep, too, as per your reply to Chuck mentioned above.
> Congratulations on your acquisition of that run-of-the-mill rose bowl
> we've all been fighting about.
Today was a grand and glorious day in Day-twa. The Stanley Cup is a
treasure.
Now, we hope for an improved Tiger club. And the Lions? Huh. (Better
leave it at that.)
--
Maria C.
R H Draney
This doesn't happen only in movies...I remember when all the peanut-butter
manufacturers started adding the words "cholesterol free!" to their labels...as
if peanuts had livers....r
--
What good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone?
R H Draney
>
>Actually, I want everyone and everything is this world (oh, yes, and
>outer space and beyond) to be wonderful and to provide a perfect life
>for all. You don't go that far in your "want" list, though. Why not?
>
>Tongue partially in cheek,
>Maria C.
Remember, the only way to ensure lasting world peace is to kill *everyone*....r
Fred Springer
Well, they lied about about there being "weapons of mass destruction" in
Iraq, and they lied about a link between Iraq and the al Quaida inspired
7/11 atrocity. They lied about their motives because the real aims of
the war were firstly to exploit Iraq's oil reserves for US and UK
benefit, and secondly to transfer the Gulf's main US military base from
Saudi Arabia to Iraq. The base in SA was the actual cause of al Qaida's
quarrel with the US, and the prime motive of the terrorist campaign
within that country aimed at toppling the US-friendly royal family.
>
> I must remind you of the trials after WWII. Were they wrong? Were the
> Allies just picking on the German generals? Would Hitler's band have
> become all "nice" if we had patted them on the head, and said, "go
> ahead; go to your homes and enjoy life. We won't do anything about it"?
>
The Nuremberg trials were based on the (at that time new) concept that
it was illegal to wage aggressive war. That concept has since become
embedded in international law, which now states that states may only go
to war if they are under imminent peril of attack by another state. Any
other action against a sovereign state has to be agreed by the UN
Security Council. That is why many people, myself included, regard Blair
and Bush as war criminals who should be brought to trial, because no one
in their right mind could take seriously their claim that Saddam posed
an imminent threat to the security of either of the aggressor countries.
He certainly did everything in his power to crush al Quaida within Iraq,
and the British intelligence service knew (and protested about) the
sexing up of the flimsy evidence there was for Iraq's war-making
capability. We now know they were right about that.
> Please. A little realism is necessary.
It certainly is. You're the one who seems to be living in cloud cuckoo
land, swallowing whole every fairy tale fed to you by the liars Bush and
Blair.
>
> By the way, what would you do if your brother or son or wife or anyone
> you know was fed, feet first, into a shredder (as Saddam's boys loved to
> do)? Tell me how you would handle that.
>
For God's sake get real. That tale has long since been exposed as
fiction, made up by the same group of Iraqi expats who spread the idea
of the 45 minute Iraqi atom bomb.
For someone who professes to want safety for everyone, you seem
remarkably unconcerned about the 600,000 Iraqis known to have died as a
direct result of this illegal, incompetently led, and above all
self-defeating war, the biggest foreign policy disaster our two
countries have suffered for many decades.
Garrett Wollman
Maria C. <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>(I'd like some good weather in my part of Michigan this summer, too.
>There's no limit on the whereabouts of good weather, is there? I mean,
>would good weather here have to mean bad weather in some other known
>place?
In our humid-continental climate that is often the case. Good weather
for you means that there's a high-pressure system over you. That's
another way of saying that the air over you is sinking, and as it
sinks, it gets warmer. When it reaches the ground, it has to go
somewhere, resulting in wind. If the sun is out, the air gets warmer
still, and more humid, and it begins to rise again. The air cools as
it rises, causing that moisture to condense, form clouds, and
eventually rain.
That's Geography 102.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
The Grammer Genious
> space and beyond) to be wonderful and to provide a perfect life for all.
> You don't go that far in your "want" list, though. Why not?
Sounds like you've had a prep course for competition in a televised beauty
pageant.
I haven't, so maybe that's why.
tony cooper
wrote:
>Statements like "I want our country to be safe" aren't stances:
>they're vacuous, meaningless platitudes, in all the worst senses of
>that term.
I dunno about that. "Safe" is the general condition desired. Safe
from what is more specific, but it presents an opening for the
nit-picker like GG who, when you say "safe from xxx", then says
"Evidently, then, you don't care if it safe from yyy".
It's not meaningless; it's all encompassing.
tony cooper
I don't know if you are aware of this, but "It's Toasted" was the
slogan of Lucky Strike cigarettes. That slogan was adopted by the
American Tobacco Company for the Lucky Strike brand in 1917. At that
time, some tobacco was sun-dried. Luckies really were different.
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Howard-Christy/Lucky-Strike-Cigarette-Giclee-Print-C12810345.jpeg
(Ad from 1936, before "Lucky Strike green has gone to war")
I don't know how long they used that slogan, but I know it was used
well into the 1950s. That, and "L.S.M.F.T", which stood for "Lucky
Strike means fine tobacco". I remember both slogans being used in
radio advertisements.
Certainly catchier slogans that "Wherever particular people
congregate" which was the slogan on a pack of Pall Mall cigarettes.
http://www.thetobaccoshop.net/images/pallmall.jpg
I was a regular consumer of both brands. First Luckies, and the Pall
Malls.
The Grammer Genious
> <...> Democrats tend to get my dander up because of the things they say
> about Republicans. <...>
Don't assume that a person is a Democrat just because he says something
negative about Republicans. He may just be a scientist.
Recent research into why Republicans are happier than Democrats has found
that when a Democrat sees or reads about a person suffering some misfortune,
the Democrat tends to empathize and share the pain, which makes the Democrat
unhappy. But a Republican will just assume that for some reason it must be
the unfortunate person's own fault -- ignorance, imprudence, laziness -- so
that Republican can remain unempathetic, and happy!
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?ChartID=7
This is not name-calling or polemics. It's just stark, irrefutable science.
But, let's face it, Republicans also have a reputation for discounting
science (look how they ridicule scientific warnings about human-caused
climate change), so this scientific finding will cut no ice with them.
The Grammer Genious
> This doesn't happen only in movies...I remember when all the peanut-butter
> manufacturers started adding the words "cholesterol free!" to their
> labels...as
> if peanuts had livers....r
I don't understand. If peanuts had livers, then peanut butter would NOT be
cholesterol free. So the label is accurate. What am I missing?
Actually, and more important, any food label that says "Fat Free" is a lie,
unless the label is on salt, or refined sugar. All living things have fat in
their cell walls. The pepper shaker on your dinner table has fat in it.
Unknown
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:58:19 -0400, Maria C. posted:
Go Lions! I have always been a BC fan.
--
roses are #FF0000
violets are #0000FF
all my base
are belong to you
Roland Hutchinson
> I also believe that Gore would have been a terrible President
Compared to WHAT?
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Roland Hutchinson
Creeping socialism, innit.
Roland Hutchinson
> But, let's face it, Republicans also have a reputation for discounting
> science (look how they ridicule scientific warnings about human-caused
> climate change), so this scientific finding will cut no ice with them.
I wonder if any of the self-styled "creation scientists" are Democrats?
R H Draney
>
>"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote
>> This doesn't happen only in movies...I remember when all the peanut-butter
>> manufacturers started adding the words "cholesterol free!" to their
>> labels...as
>> if peanuts had livers....r
>
>I don't understand. If peanuts had livers, then peanut butter would NOT be
>cholesterol free. So the label is accurate. What am I missing?
A sarcastic reference to the current use of "as if!"...r
HVS
That's really my point. It's so all-encompassing that everybody
would agree that it's their goal, too: nobody's going to stand up
and promote the all-encompassing opposite.
It's the uncontradictable nature of a platitude that makes it
meaningless as a political stance.
the Omrud
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:41:55 GMT, the Omrud
> <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> HVS wrote:
>>
>>> Statements like "I want our country to be safe" aren't stances:
>>> they're vacuous, meaningless platitudes, in all the worst senses of
>>> that term.
>> I'm reminded of the utterly splendid "Mad Men", who were looking for a
>> new slogan for a brand of cigarettes. The owner when through the
>> process for turning tobacco leaves into fags, and they decided on "It's
>> Toasted!". He protested that all cigarette tobacco is toasted, but the
>> advertising men persuaded him that it didn't matter - his would be the
>> first brand to make the point and the public would think it was a
>> differentiator.
>
> I don't know if you are aware of this, but "It's Toasted" was the
> slogan of Lucky Strike cigarettes. That slogan was adopted by the
> American Tobacco Company for the Lucky Strike brand in 1917. At that
> time, some tobacco was sun-dried. Luckies really were different.
> http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Howard-Christy/Lucky-Strike-Cigarette-Giclee-Print-C12810345.jpeg
> (Ad from 1936, before "Lucky Strike green has gone to war")
"Mad Men" pulls in a lot of real life - we've seen real TV commercials
for the Nixon and Kennedy campaigns but it's the fictional advertising
agency in the story which ran the Nixon campaign. I'm sure they named
Lucky Strike, but I didn't remember because cigarette brands don't stick
in my mind (never having even held a fag
Mad Men is, BTW and IMO, is the best TV series to come out of the USA
for many, many years. Adult and intelligent, it had the unnerving knack
of making me change my opinion about several of the individuals as the
story unfolded. And they don't do that tiresome "Last Time On ..." for
people who can't remember the story, or "Next Time On ..." to try to
entice you to watch the next episode. Even Doctor Who does that now.
--
David
Wood Avens
wrote:
The AmE term for it is "motherhood and apple pie", innit.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
mb
> The Grammer Genious wrote:
> > But, let's face it, Republicans also have a reputation for discounting
> > science (look how they ridicule scientific warnings about human-caused
> > climate change), so this scientific finding will cut no ice with them.
>
> I wonder if any of the self-styled "creation scientists" are Democrats?
Why not? At that rate, you could wonder if any of them Democrats had
voted for the fascist laws or armed aggression or ritual human
sacrifice, or... In every case I believe the vote went about 90% ayes.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
<snip>
>Politics is a dirty game
Conservatives often have that attitude. Call us naive, but liberals
like myself believe change for the better is always possible and that
politics is no more inherently "dirty" than is business, our schools
or the Church.
Or perhaps, Maria, I have misinterpreted your definition of "dirty".
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Chuck Riggs
<waup...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> <...>
>> What I want and think:
>>
>> I want (not necessarily in this order) our country to be safe, <...>
>
>Why "our country"? You mean, to hell with everybody else? Sounds kind of
>jingo.
>
>I want EVERYBODY to be safe. And I want them to be safe from "our country"
>as well.
Even internally, people's safety from their own government cannot be
assumed. With Bush's setup and with the setup in several African
countries, it can't always be taken as a given.
Chuck Riggs
>Maria C. filted:
>>
>>Actually, I want everyone and everything is this world (oh, yes, and
>>outer space and beyond) to be wonderful and to provide a perfect life
>>for all. You don't go that far in your "want" list, though. Why not?
>>
>>Tongue partially in cheek,
>>Maria C.
>
>Remember, the only way to ensure lasting world peace is to kill *everyone*....r
That won't be necessary after a hundred years, not as long as people
keep fueling up their SUVs, taking unnecessary air trips and baulking
at nuclear power.
tony cooper
wrote:
>On 07 Jun 2008, tony cooper wrote
If there's a "worst sense" of a meaningless platitude like "I want our
country to be safe", its that not everyone is being honest when they
say it.
There are Americans who want this country, and the people in it, to be
safe...as long as the people in it are not illegal immigrants,
homosexuals, members of certain religions, or condemned prisoners.
While no one may stand up and promote the opposite in general, there
are many who would promote the opposite in the specific.
I think it's allowable to write "I want this country to be safe" as a
generality. It's up to the reader to prompt the maker of the
statement to expand on what "safe" is and when there might be
exceptions.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> I was a regular consumer of both brands. First Luckies, and the Pall
> Malls.
"Pall Mall" is a good example of transAtlantic stress disorder. In my
hearing USans stress the first word, and Brits the second. I can't
remember if the same applies to "Lucky Strike", partly because Americans
usually call them "Luckies" as per Tony, above: does it?
Even AustralianE has a tendency in that direction: WIWAL, both "Guy
Fawkes" and "Granny Smith" had their major stresses on the first word.
--
Mike.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>mb wrote:
>> As many other people said, those who committed the crime of aggression
>> against Iraq, and those who enabled the criminals in Congress, still
>> have to be tried. The civilized countries have no such absurdity as
>> "death penalty" but you, a supporter of execution for being
>> "horrible", will have no difficulty in asking for the trial in the US
>> and death "penalty" for all those who lied and tricked to commit this
>> aggression of Iraq, a crime against peace.
>
>Your premise is faulty. And I doubt that any lies and tricks were on the
>part of those who wished to rid the world of terrorism.
>
>I must remind you of the trials after WWII. Were they wrong?
Many people think so. Had the Axis side won, the Allies might have
suffered a similar fate, which could be equally justified, especially
since Germans had good reason to feel vindictive after the Treaty of
Versailles at the close of WWI, not that another world war was
justified. But should Churchill, who could be merciless, or Truman,
who twice unleashed the A-bomb on countless non-combatants, and
various other Allied leaders, for whatever the reason, be subjected to
war crime trials by a victorious Germany? Personally, I don't think
so, since war is hell, as General Sherman said in an earlier war, but
the Germans were in no position to put Allied leaders on trial, so
we'll never know the outcome of "justice".
To the victors belong the spoils, so fairness seldom enters into it.
> Were the
>Allies just picking on the German generals?
No, they picked on many people in the German government, some of whom
were forced, by threats to their family and other dastardly means, to
do what they did. That excuse, often employed, was hardly valid in
every case, but it was some of the time. These are complex issues,
after all.
>Would Hitler's band have
>become all "nice" if we had patted them on the head, and said, "go
>ahead; go to your homes and enjoy life. We won't do anything about it"?
The question of the nicety or nastiness of his entourage is less
important, I think, than the healing process that had to take place
after the war in order for Germany, Japan and Italy to take their
place in Europe and the wider world again. Whether the trials delayed
that process or were a necessary evil will long be debated.
>I don't apologize for us or our Allies of the past or the present.
>There's little, if anything, to apologize for.
The Allied and the Axis sides both fell far short of perfection, but
what apologies were needed is a moot point. As for punishments,Truman
probably didn't deserve to be hanged from his heels by an angry
Japanese mob, as was Mussolini by an angry Italian one, but is
ordering deaths for deaths, as the court did, the right thing to do?
tony cooper
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>[...]
>> I was a regular consumer of both brands. First Luckies, and the Pall
>> Malls.
>
>"Pall Mall" is a good example of transAtlantic stress disorder. In my
>hearing USans stress the first word, and Brits the second.
I've said "Pall Mall" thousands of times, but I don't think I stress
either word. It's really not a pair of words that requires stress on
either. I think I've seen mention that some Brits say "Pell Mell",
but I've never heard a Brit say either version of the cigarette's
name. We say "Pall" and "Mall" both to rhyme with "crawl".
>I can't
>remember if the same applies to "Lucky Strike", partly because Americans
>usually call them "Luckies" as per Tony, above: does it?
When I smoked Luckies, I don't think I ever asked for a pack of "Lucky
Strikes" when I bought them.
>Even AustralianE has a tendency in that direction: WIWAL, both "Guy
>Fawkes" and "Granny Smith" had their major stresses on the first word.
I can't imagine why there's inclination to stress either word in
either pair unless you are emphasizing which Fawkes, which Guy, which
Granny, or which Smith.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Maria C. wrote, in part:
>
>> Politics is a dirty game, and I'm a Republican because I believe
>> Republicans to be more honest than Democrats.
>[...]
>
>Now, before reading any responses to my post, I will admit that the
>statement above goes too far. Let me just say that I've known honest
>people of all political leanings, but Democrats tend to get my dander up
>because of the things they say about Republicans.
>
>Actually, not just the things they say. It's the attitude when they say
>it, an attitude that screams "I'm smart and you're not," or "you can't
>possibly know what you're talking about." Well, those folks can think
>what they want, but they should also keep in mind how they seem to
>others. (How? Well, not good.)
Republicans aren't any dumber than Democrats, since the bell curve for
IQs applies to conservatives much as it does to liberals, but by the
nature of conservatism, Republicans tend to bury their heads in the
sand, hoping that change, progress and improvements to government will
go away, or not be mentioned in the first place.
Chuck Riggs
<waup...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> <...> Democrats tend to get my dander up because of the things they say
>> about Republicans. <...>
>
>Don't assume that a person is a Democrat just because he says something
>negative about Republicans. He may just be a scientist.
>
>Recent research into why Republicans are happier than Democrats has found
>that when a Democrat sees or reads about a person suffering some misfortune,
>the Democrat tends to empathize and share the pain, which makes the Democrat
>unhappy. But a Republican will just assume that for some reason it must be
>the unfortunate person's own fault -- ignorance, imprudence, laziness -- so
>that Republican can remain unempathetic, and happy!
As happy as a rock or a bush, I am sure.
Chuck Riggs
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>The Grammer Genious wrote:
>
>> But, let's face it, Republicans also have a reputation for discounting
>> science (look how they ridicule scientific warnings about human-caused
>> climate change), so this scientific finding will cut no ice with them.
>
>I wonder if any of the self-styled "creation scientists" are Democrats?
One or two of the southern Democrats, perhaps.
Unknown
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:12:39 +0100, Mike Lyle posted:
>tony cooper wrote:
>[...]
>> I was a regular consumer of both brands. First Luckies, and the Pall
>> Malls.
>
>"Pall Mall" is a good example of transAtlantic stress disorder. In my
>hearing USans stress the first word, and Brits the second. I can't
>remember if the same applies to "Lucky Strike", partly because Americans
>usually call them "Luckies" as per Tony, above: does it?
What bothers me is the way folks pronounce it; "pell mell".
>Even AustralianE has a tendency in that direction: WIWAL, both "Guy
>Fawkes" and "Granny Smith" had their major stresses on the first word.
--
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>HVS wrote:
>>
>> If people aren't going to take political discussions to an
>> appropriate forum, you'd think they could observe the common courtesy
>> of changing the subject line or marking it OT when the discussion
>> moves to this level of detail.
>>
>> That's what I want and think.
>
>Can't say I object. And you're right -- I should have changed the
>Subject line. My appologies for not doing so.
And a further bow, scrap and kiss to each of your hyperspace toes,
HVS, as I dutifully apologize for my blunder.
Wood Avens
>tony cooper wrote:
>[...]
>> I was a regular consumer of both brands. First Luckies, and the Pall
>> Malls.
>
>"Pall Mall" is a good example of transAtlantic stress disorder. In my
>hearing USans stress the first word, and Brits the second. I can't
>remember if the same applies to "Lucky Strike", partly because Americans
>usually call them "Luckies" as per Tony, above: does it?
>
"Robin Hood" is a good example of this phenomenon.
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Politics is a dirty game
>
> Conservatives often have that attitude. Call us naive,
You (the liberals) are naive if you believe that politics is /not/ a
dirty game.
> .........but liberals
> like myself believe change for the better is always possible
I believe that "change for the better is always possible" too. (Just
about anything is "always possible" but I know what you mean.) I don't
believe that "change," period, is necessarily for the better. Nor do I
believe that "change," period, is necessarily bad. Actually, everything
changes (or seems to) at some pace or another all the time.
> .....and that
> politics is no more inherently "dirty" than is business, our schools
> or the Church.
That I don't agree with: when "business or our school or the Church" are
"dirty," it's ususally because of "politics." I'm speaking there of
politics as defined this way: social relations involving authority or
power.
>
> Or perhaps, Maria, I have misinterpreted your definition of "dirty".
Here are a couple of defs from OneLook Dictionary that fit my meaning:
unethical or dishonest
violating accepted standards or rules
--
Maria C.
Nick
>
> I must remind you of the trials after WWII. Were they wrong? Were the
> Allies just picking on the German generals? Would Hitler's band have
> ahead; go to your homes and enjoy life. We won't do anything about it"?
While having no axe to grind on either side here (the sheer stark
black-and-whiteness that so many otherwise sensible, educated and
intelligent Americans apply to politics never ceases to amaze me) it
does have to be said that the ones they didn't catch do seem to have
quietly gone on to live perfectly normal lives afterwards. As we see
each time some eighty-plus doddery old chap living in Kettering is
discovered to have been The Butcher Of Somewhere.
Maria C.
> the Omrud wrote:
>>
>> I'm reminded of the utterly splendid "Mad Men", who were looking for
>> a new slogan for a brand of cigarettes. The owner when through the
>> process for turning tobacco leaves into fags, and they decided on
>> "It's Toasted!". He protested that all cigarette tobacco is
>> toasted, but the advertising men persuaded him that it didn't matter
>> - his would be the first brand to make the point and the public
>> would think it was a differentiator.
>
> I don't know if you are aware of this, but "It's Toasted" was the
> slogan of Lucky Strike cigarettes. That slogan was adopted by the
> American Tobacco Company for the Lucky Strike brand in 1917. At that
> time, some tobacco was sun-dried. Luckies really were different.
> http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Howard-Christy/Lucky-Strike-Cigarette-Giclee-Print-C12810345.jpeg
> (Ad from 1936, before "Lucky Strike green has gone to war")
>
> well into the 1950s. That, and "L.S.M.F.T", which stood for "Lucky
> Strike means fine tobacco". I remember both slogans being used in
> radio advertisements.
I remember that slogan very well. Many people smoked Luckies (seldom
"Lucky Strikes") then. My parents smoked Camels. (My father quit early
on, but continued to smoke cigars for a number of years.)
>
> Certainly catchier slogans that "Wherever particular people
> congregate" which was the slogan on a pack of Pall Mall cigarettes.
> http://www.thetobaccoshop.net/images/pallmall.jpg
>
> I was a regular consumer of both brands. First Luckies, and the Pall
> Malls.
My first was Pall Malls -- Advertisement: "Outstanding... and they are
mild." Pall Malls were pronounced "Pell Mells" hereabouts. PMs had no
filter then, AFAIK.
Next came Kent "with the micronite filter." As time when by, I changed
to "off" brands because of the price. As many here (in AUE) know, I
finally quit (after 40 years) in January of 2002.
When my husband smoked (from ? age until about 1968) he smoked Luckies.
--
Maria C.
Resident of southeast Michigan, near Detroit; native of east Tennessee.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<1-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>Maria C. wrote:
>>
>> I must remind you of the trials after WWII. Were they wrong? Were the
>> Allies just picking on the German generals? Would Hitler's band have
>> become all "nice" if we had patted them on the head, and said, "go
>> ahead; go to your homes and enjoy life. We won't do anything about it"?
>
>While having no axe to grind on either side here (the sheer stark
>black-and-whiteness that so many otherwise sensible, educated and
>intelligent Americans apply to politics never ceases to amaze me) it
>does have to be said that the ones they didn't catch do seem to have
>quietly gone on to live perfectly normal lives afterwards.
This might be because the ones who were caught were held
responsible for their appalling actions. It was sensible for the
ones who weren't caught to live exemplary lives and to not draw
attention to themselves.
> As we see
>each time some eighty-plus doddery old chap living in Kettering is
>discovered to have been The Butcher Of Somewhere.
There was the De-Nazification process in Allied Occupied Germany
and Austria. This not only removed Nazis from positions of power
but also re-educated people to remove nazi attitudes and
behaviour.
I'm not familiar with the details. There is an outline here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Nazification
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Maria C.
> tony cooper wrote:
> [...]
>> I was a regular consumer of both brands. First Luckies, and the Pall
>> Malls.
>
> "Pall Mall" is a good example of transAtlantic stress disorder. In my
> hearing USans stress the first word, and Brits the second.
I always stressed both words equally. (If there was a slight difference,
I'm unaware of it.)
> .....I can't
> remember if the same applies to "Lucky Strike", partly because
> Americans usually call them "Luckies" as per Tony, above: does it?
"Lucky Strikes," when the full name was used (seldom), had equal stress
on each word. (The 'y' was diminished. LUCKy STRIKES.)
> Even AustralianE has a tendency in that direction: WIWAL, both "Guy
> Fawkes" and "Granny Smith" had their major stresses on the first word.
I'd say them both with equal stress on both words (again, with the 'y'
diminished).
"Guy Fawkes" reminds me of "Guy de Maupassant." One my my high school
teachers said the "Guy" part was pronounced "gay" or gee (hard g). True?
And was "Gay" part of his last name? Or a title of some sort? (He seems
to have had three other first names.)
Maria C.
HS Class of 1961
Skitt
> My first was Pall Malls -- Advertisement: "Outstanding... and they are
> mild." Pall Malls were pronounced "Pell Mells" hereabouts. PMs had no
> filter then, AFAIK.
>
> Next came Kent "with the micronite filter." As time when by, I changed
> to "off" brands because of the price. As many here (in AUE) know, I
> finally quit (after 40 years) in January of 2002.
>
> When my husband smoked (from ? age until about 1968) he smoked
> Luckies.
I smoked from around 1955 to 1990, but I never had a favorite brand. Near
the end of my smoking years, I smoked the generic kind (because of cost).
Mostly, I smoked the filtered sort, except when I was in Basic Training in
the Army (1956) and had to get rid of all remnants of a finished cigarette.
I absolutely hated getting tobacco on any part of my mouth.
--
Skitt (AmE)
used to be a slender guy when he was still smoking
Maria C.
Here in the US, there has been at least one former prison guard (or
something higher, perhaps) who has been caught, retained, and (I think)
imprisoned. Perhaps deported. I couldn't see the point -- years later,
another life, no crimes after coming here. Old.
I don't know what the right thing to do was, but I don't think that was
what was done. (I'm also not sure that the right culprit was caught.)
All shades of feelings,
Maria C., Republican.
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote
>> <...>
>> Actually, I want everyone and everything is this world (oh, yes, and
>> outer space and beyond) to be wonderful and to provide a perfect
>> life for all. You don't go that far in your "want" list, though. Why
>> not?
>
> Sounds like you've had a prep course for competition in a televised
> beauty pageant.
Shirley you jest. I'm not and never was "beauty pageant" material. (I
was jealous of those who were, as some may understand.)
>
> I haven't, so maybe that's why.
Doesn't apply. Try again.
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>> Maria C. wrote, in part:
>>
>>> Politics is a dirty game, and I'm a Republican because I believe
>>> Republicans to be more honest than Democrats.
>> [...]
>>
>> Now, before reading any responses to my post, I will admit that the
>> statement above goes too far. Let me just say that I've known honest
>> dander up because of the things they say about Republicans.
>>
>> say it, an attitude that screams "I'm smart and you're not," or "you
>> can't possibly know what you're talking about." Well, those folks
>> can think what they want, but they should also keep in mind how they
>> seem to others. (How? Well, not good.)
>>
>>
>
> Patient to Psychiatrist. "I think I have an inferority complex,
> Doctor" Doctor examines patient. "No complex, you are just inferior".
Oh, dear. Is it you to whome the doctor was talking? Poor Irwell. You
have my sympathies, and I'd tell the doctor off if I knew him.
Maria,
Who used to have an inferiority complex but finally realized it was
something that the others should have -- not me. So I got over it.
(Just funning. Also, signing off now. There's a b-day party in Algonac I
must go to.)
CDB
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:12:39 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I was a regular consumer of both brands. First Luckies, and the
>>> Pall Malls.
>> "Pall Mall" is a good example of transAtlantic stress disorder. In
>> my hearing USans stress the first word, and Brits the second. I
>> can't remember if the same applies to "Lucky Strike", partly
>> because Americans usually call them "Luckies" as per Tony, above:
>> does it?
> "Robin Hood" is a good example of this phenomenon.
And "Dennis Moore".
mb
The list of "right culprits", now, is Emperor Cheney, President Bush,
the Congress who approved them, and the people on the spot who
additionally committed war crimes. Including the intentional murder of
between half a million and a million people.
No use trying to escape into BS.
Isabelle Cecchini
[...]
> "Guy Fawkes" reminds me of "Guy de Maupassant." One my my high school
> teachers said the "Guy" part was pronounced "gay" or gee (hard g). True?
> And was "Gay" part of his last name? Or a title of some sort? (He seems
> to have had three other first names.)
"Guy" was the first name he went by, even though it's the last one
listed. It's prounounced like "gee" with a hard g.
French administrative forms still ask you to list all your first names,
and if you have more than one, then to underline the one you are
actually known by. That "usual"* first name is very often the one coming
first in the list nowadays, but that didn't use to be the case: first
names were often given in reference to some ancestor or god-parent, so
that the really personal first name came in last.
*"usual" : I'm not sure that's the best way of translating French
"usuel" in "prénom usuel". Google tells me it's quite common in Canadian
administrative speak, but that might come from the need to have
bilingual forms accomodating French naming traditions.
--
Isabelle Cecchini
tony cooper
wrote:
>My first was Pall Malls -- Advertisement: "Outstanding... and they are
>mild." Pall Malls were pronounced "Pell Mells" hereabouts. PMs had no
>filter then, AFAIK.
I was about to disagree with Oleg on this. I've never heard "Pell
Mells". Always "Pall Malls". A little Googling shows that "Pell
Mell" was/is indeed used.
John Dean
> Maria C. a écrit :
> [...]
>> "Guy Fawkes" reminds me of "Guy de Maupassant." One my my high school
>> teachers said the "Guy" part was pronounced "gay" or gee (hard g).
>> True? And was "Gay" part of his last name? Or a title of some sort?
>> (He seems to have had three other first names.)
>
> "Guy" was the first name he went by, even though it's the last one
> listed. It's prounounced like "gee" with a hard g.
>
> French administrative forms still ask you to list all your first
> names, and if you have more than one, then to underline the one you
> are actually known by. That "usual"* first name is very often the one
> coming first in the list nowadays, but that didn't use to be the
> case: first names were often given in reference to some ancestor or
> god-parent, so that the really personal first name came in last.
>
Not always the case here - witness James Paul McCartney, David Jude Law,
Arthur John Gielgud and more. Don't et me (or anyone else here) started on
the Royal family.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Maria C.
BS? I presume you mean that which dots farm pastures. So, I guess you
are unwilling to accept anything I might say in response to your
statement(s). Further, though you may read anything I might say on this
topic, you will automatically view it with prejudice.
Have fun.
--
Maria C.
mb
How easy. I love your MO: Start yet another preposterous propaganda
tirade on the flimsiest of pretexts, get your attention called to its
absurdities, and entirely avoid the whole thing. When reminded again,
put it all on account of "prejudice" instead of addressing the
question.
David Harmon
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote,
>In our humid-continental climate that is often the case. Good weather
>for you means that there's a high-pressure system over you. That's
>another way of saying that the air over you is sinking, and as it
>sinks, it gets warmer. When it reaches the ground, it has to go
>somewhere, resulting in wind. If the sun is out, the air gets warmer
>still, and more humid, and it begins to rise again. The air cools as
>it rises, causing that moisture to condense, form clouds, and
>eventually rain.
>
>That's Geography 102.
If that's geography, what's meteorology?
Garrett Wollman
David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ yes, that is a bad example, and also invalid
(not to mention rude)
>>[my description of weather systems deleted]
>>That's Geography 102.
>If that's geography, what's meteorology?
Not an academic department at my alma mater. (Where does one go[1] to
get a degree in meterology?) Geog 102 was introductory physical
geography -- landforms, climate, plate tectonics, glaciation, and so
on.
-GAWollman
[1] Aside from Penn State, which seems to be the alma mater of most
broadcast meteorologists -- even the ones who don't work for
AccuWeather.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>> mb wrote:
Good grief. You're the one who jumped into a "preposterous progananda
tirade" with your remarks about Cheney, Bush, and Congress and
accusations about their "war crimes" in reply to a bit I mentioned
(about a former prison guard, etc.) which was in reply to a previous
post about "De-Nazification."
Then you said "No use trying to escape into BS." I replied with my take
on your statement.
So what is it you want? Do you want me to state again how I feel about,
shall we say, you and people who share your opinions (regarding the
American government)? Do you want me to prove that /my/ opinions are
right? Other than stating that you and your think-alikes are the ones
who are right, what have you done to prove the correctness of your
views? Or the validity of your accusations?
Nothing. You can't. What you state is opinion, and what you state is
politically-driven nonsense as far as I can tell.
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
One more thing: I won't be replying to anything else tonight. It's late.
--
Maria C.
Unknown
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:36:23 -0700, David Harmon posted:
The study of falling rocks. What's a chondrite?
Roland Hutchinson
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 09:04:37 +0100, HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>It's the uncontradictable nature of a platitude that makes it
>>meaningless as a political stance.
>
> The AmE term for it is "motherhood and apple pie", innit.
YOU MAYBE GOT SOMPIN' AGAINST MUDDERHOOD AN APPLE PIE?
JUS WOT KINNA MERICANS ARE YOU ENGLISHLADIES, ANYHOW?
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Roland Hutchinson
> On Jun 6, 11:25 pm, Roland Hutchinson <my.spamt...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> The Grammer Genious wrote:
>> > But, let's face it, Republicans also have a reputation for discounting
>> > science (look how they ridicule scientific warnings about human-caused
>> > climate change), so this scientific finding will cut no ice with them.
>>
>> I wonder if any of the self-styled "creation scientists" are Democrats?
>
> Why not?
Because public support for teaching creationism in American schools seems to
come from elements of the so-called "Religious Right" and their political
allies. There hasn't been much in the way of "Religious Right"
participation in the Democratic Party as far as I am aware.
The last Democrat I happen to know of who went on the public record
defending the biblical account of Creation (and defending a non-literal
version of it at that, without the "young earth" nonsense that seems to
have become a touchstone) was William Jennings Bryant.
So I thought I'd ask.
> At that rate, you could wonder if any of them Democrats had
> voted for the fascist laws or armed aggression or ritual human
> sacrifice, or... In every case I believe the vote went about 90% ayes.
That's a different question.
Roland Hutchinson
American politics involves a certain amount of dirt, granted. But it's not
as dirty as it might be. (Look around the world; it's not too hard to find
much dirtier examples -- and some cleaner ones as well.) And it's a heck
of a lot less dirty than it was (say) a hundred years ago.
Roland Hutchinson
> *"usual" : I'm not sure that's the best way of translating French
> "usuel" in "prénom usuel". Google tells me it's quite common in Canadian
> administrative speak, but that might come from the need to have
> bilingual forms accomodating French naming traditions.
Might I suggest "habitual" -- and in this context "habitually used"?
You'd think that there would be a use for such a concept in English as well,
since even though Anglophones usually get at most two given names, some of
them will use their "middle" name in preference to their first.
Roland Hutchinson
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 06:25:50 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>The Grammer Genious wrote:
>>
>>> But, let's face it, Republicans also have a reputation for discounting
>>> science (look how they ridicule scientific warnings about human-caused
>>> climate change), so this scientific finding will cut no ice with them.
>>
>>I wonder if any of the self-styled "creation scientists" are Democrats?
>
> One or two of the southern Democrats, perhaps.
What you call your immutable-kind-of-yellow-dog Democrat, I suppose.
Jitze
When you're very sorry and promise not to do it again.
What's an acolyte?
Jitze
the Omrud
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:12:39 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I was a regular consumer of both brands. First Luckies, and the Pall
>>> Malls.
>> "Pall Mall" is a good example of transAtlantic stress disorder. In my
>> hearing USans stress the first word, and Brits the second.
>
> either word. It's really not a pair of words that requires stress on
> either. I think I've seen mention that some Brits say "Pell Mell",
> but I've never heard a Brit say either version of the cigarette's
> name. We say "Pall" and "Mall" both to rhyme with "crawl".
"Pell Mell" is not "Pall Mall", but means something like "Willy Nilly"
or "Haphazardly".
We say neither to rhyme with crawl, but both like "pal". Unless we are
under 30, when we think the UK pronunciation of Mall is "mawl", which of
course means that it is.
>> I can't
>> remember if the same applies to "Lucky Strike", partly because Americans
>> usually call them "Luckies" as per Tony, above: does it?
>
> When I smoked Luckies, I don't think I ever asked for a pack of "Lucky
> Strikes" when I bought them.
>
>> Even AustralianE has a tendency in that direction: WIWAL, both "Guy
>> Fawkes" and "Granny Smith" had their major stresses on the first word.
>
> I can't imagine why there's inclination to stress either word in
> either pair unless you are emphasizing which Fawkes, which Guy, which
> Granny, or which Smith.
It is very noticeable to us that Americans stress GUY Fawkes and ROBIN
Hood. The latter grates especially.
We are so conditioned to our own stress patterns that it's possible to
be misled as to what we are actually saying. Japanese appears to have
no stress markers within words; I have to go out of my way to
apparently stress the unstressed syllables to try to approximate the
native pronunciation. Take "arigato" (thank you). The unconscious
English pronunciation is "arry-GAH-toh" with the stress on the
penultimate syllable. But I have learned to go so far as to say what
sounds to me like "a-REE-gah-toh" to return the word to actually
unstressed condition.
--
David
the Omrud
You can't fool me. This is the Lupin Express.
--
David
the Omrud
> Isabelle Cecchini wrote:
>
>> *"usual" : I'm not sure that's the best way of translating French
>> "usuel" in "prénom usuel". Google tells me it's quite common in Canadian
>> administrative speak, but that might come from the need to have
>> bilingual forms accomodating French naming traditions.
>
> Might I suggest "habitual" -- and in this context "habitually used"?
>
> You'd think that there would be a use for such a concept in English as well,
> since even though Anglophones usually get at most two given names, some of
> them will use their "middle" name in preference to their first.
In IT, where this matters a lot, we ask for "preferred forename", which
may not be one of the legal forenames but a nickname or shortened form.
--
David
Chuck Riggs
<usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>It is very noticeable to us that Americans stress GUY Fawkes and ROBIN
>Hood. The latter grates especially.
Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, what's with the "us", David?
If you're referring to the British, I doubt if a significant
percentage of the 60 million population have this particular pet
peeve.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
the Omrud
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:12:35 GMT, the Omrud
> <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It is very noticeable to us that Americans stress GUY Fawkes and ROBIN
>> Hood. The latter grates especially.
>
> Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, what's with the "us", David?
> If you're referring to the British, I doubt if a significant
> percentage of the 60 million population have this particular pet
> peeve.
I'll lay 50p that you're wrong. However, I chose my word carefully in
response to Tony's statement:
> We say "Pall" and "Mall" both to rhyme with "crawl"
--
David