one of the women's husband

[quia...@yahoo.com]

The phrase "one of the women's husband" appears in the first sentence
of this article:

http://tinyurl.com/hraadpn

Any thoughts?

--
John

[Dingbat]

Shortly after photographer Tara Ruby released a series dedicated to working moms who breastfeed, the husband of one of the women faced a backlash at work.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

It is logical but awkward.

It means "the husband of one of the women".

The women are those mentioned in the first part of the sentence:

"Shortly after photographer Tara Ruby released a series dedicated to
working moms who breastfeed,"

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter Moylan]

That tinyurl leads to
https://au.yahoo.com/?p=us
which doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you wrote. A bug in
Yahoo's redirection system, or were you pointing to yesterday's news?

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:41:30 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 2016-Apr-20 19:47, quia...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> The phrase "one of the women's husband" appears in the first sentence
>> of this article:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/hraadpn
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>
>That tinyurl leads to
> https://au.yahoo.com/?p=us
>which doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you wrote. A bug in
>Yahoo's redirection system, or were you pointing to yesterday's news?

On my PC in the UK that tinyurl leads to the relevant article:
https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/firefighter-trouble-because-wifes-breastfeeding-151420907.html

Shortly after photographer Tara Ruby released a series dedicated to

working moms who breastfeed, one of the women’s husband faced
backlash at work. According to WNEM, a New Mexico firefighter may be
put on unpaid leave because his wife was wearing his uniform while
breastfeeding.

It went to that article yesterday and today.

[Mike Barnes]

Stefan Ram wrote:

> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
>>> The phrase "one of the women's husband" appears in the first sentence
>>> of this article:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/hraadpn
>>> Any thoughts?
>> It is logical but awkward.
>

> »woman's« is like an adjective. It can be removed. This
> leaves us with »
>
> one of the husband
>
> «. We can now see it clearly: »One of« requires a plural.
> »husband« is not a plural.

So you read it as

"one of (the women's husbands)"

rather than

"(one of the women)'s husband"

. That works only if at least one of the other women has a husband.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

[arth...@yahoo.com]

I think 'one of the women's husbands' would have been better. But, as has been said, 'the husband of one of the women' is best.

But, I am drunk... and I might be trespassing...

Respectfully,
Navi.

[arth...@yahoo.com]

I cross-posted with Mark and now that I have read his reply I realize that 'one of the women's husbands' implies that there is more than one husband... In the other version, only one is needed, although it would work if there were more too. It is more flexible.

Respectfully,
Navi.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 8:19:40 AM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:

> On my PC in the UK that tinyurl leads to the relevant article:
> https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/firefighter-trouble-because-wifes-breastfeeding-151420907.html
>
> Shortly after photographer Tara Ruby released a series dedicated to
> working moms who breastfeed, one of the women's husband faced
> backlash at work. According to WNEM, a New Mexico firefighter may be
> put on unpaid leave because his wife was wearing his uniform while
> breastfeeding.

So it had nothing to do with the breastfeeding but was only a matter of
unauthorized wearing of official garb. He should have been suspended for
allowing _anyone_ to wear his uniform.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <36bac511-7872-4c87...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> Shortly after photographer Tara Ruby released a series dedicated to
>> working moms who breastfeed, one of the women's husband faced
>> backlash at work. According to WNEM, a New Mexico firefighter may be
>> put on unpaid leave because his wife was wearing his uniform while
>> breastfeeding.

>So it had nothing to do with the breastfeeding but was only a matter of
>unauthorized wearing of official garb. He should have been suspended for
>allowing _anyone_ to wear his uniform.

There's a rule against allowing someone to wear your uniform?

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

Does your rights-less country not have an offence of "impersonating
an officer"?

Hallowe'en costumes are designed to be instantly distinguishable from
genuine uniforms.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:11:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:40:03 AM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <36bac511-7872-4c87...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Shortly after photographer Tara Ruby released a series dedicated to
>> >> working moms who breastfeed, one of the women's husband faced
>> >> backlash at work. According to WNEM, a New Mexico firefighter may be
>> >> put on unpaid leave because his wife was wearing his uniform while
>> >> breastfeeding.
>> >So it had nothing to do with the breastfeeding but was only a matter of
>> >unauthorized wearing of official garb. He should have been suspended for
>> >allowing _anyone_ to wear his uniform.
>>
>> There's a rule against allowing someone to wear your uniform?
>
>Does your rights-less country not have an offence of "impersonating
>an officer"?
>

There certainly is an offence of that nature.

I think that in our courts the question would be whether wearing a
uniform in that context could be seen as impersonation.

>Hallowe'en costumes are designed to be instantly distinguishable from
>genuine uniforms.

[Cheryl]

Probably, if there's a possibility of impersonation of some official or
emergency worker - fire fighter, nurse, police officer, etc.

What's a bit puzzling is that the original series was about working
mothers who breastfeed, but that particular mother doesn't appear to be
a fire fighter. In fact, no one mentions what her work is.

--
Cheryl

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[the Omrud]

On 20/04/2016 17:46, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:11:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:40:03 AM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> In article <36bac511-7872-4c87...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Shortly after photographer Tara Ruby released a series dedicated to
>>>>> working moms who breastfeed, one of the women's husband faced
>>>>> backlash at work. According to WNEM, a New Mexico firefighter may be
>>>>> put on unpaid leave because his wife was wearing his uniform while
>>>>> breastfeeding.
>>>> So it had nothing to do with the breastfeeding but was only a matter of
>>>> unauthorized wearing of official garb. He should have been suspended for
>>>> allowing _anyone_ to wear his uniform.
>>>
>>> There's a rule against allowing someone to wear your uniform?
>>
>> Does your rights-less country not have an offence of "impersonating
>> an officer"?
>>
> There certainly is an offence of that nature.

Of impersonating a police officer. Not any other sort of officer.

--
David

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 14:22:14 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:

>On 2016-04-20 1:07 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <36bac511-7872-4c87...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Shortly after photographer Tara Ruby released a series dedicated to
>>>> working moms who breastfeed, one of the women's husband faced
>>>> backlash at work. According to WNEM, a New Mexico firefighter may be
>>>> put on unpaid leave because his wife was wearing his uniform while
>>>> breastfeeding.
>>
>>> So it had nothing to do with the breastfeeding but was only a matter of
>>> unauthorized wearing of official garb. He should have been suspended for
>>> allowing _anyone_ to wear his uniform.
>>
>> There's a rule against allowing someone to wear your uniform?
>>
>Probably, if there's a possibility of impersonation of some official or
>emergency worker - fire fighter, nurse, police officer, etc.
>
>What's a bit puzzling is that the original series was about working
>mothers who breastfeed, but that particular mother doesn't appear to be
>a fire fighter. In fact, no one mentions what her work is.

While I didn't see the article, the text above doesn't seem puzzling
to me. My reading: a woman, who was breastfeeding, was photographed
wearing (part) of her firefighter-husband's uniform. The firefighter
is in trouble because his wife was wearing his uniform. "Backlash"
could consist of just negative comments by his co-workers or
superiors.

"Impersonation" is not at issue, and it's a rather silly charge. To
"impersonate" requires the pretense of appearing to be what you are
not.

My son is a firefighter and is not aware of any rule against allowing
his wife to wear any part of his uniform as long as his wife is not
falsely presenting herself as a firefighter.

The story seems unduly hyped-up. It is highly inconceivable that the
wife was wearing his (entire) uniform. A shirt or a jacket, maybe,
but not the entire uniform. It wouldn't induce milk flow for her to
be wearing his helmet or boots.

Some men, and some women, feel that breastfeeding done where it is
observable by the public is offensive. My own feeling is it is
acceptable done in public with a towel discreetly draped, but it is in
somewhat bad taste without the towel or other covering. Not
offensive, but in poor taste.

The issue is germane to me because I have a son who is a firefighter
and is married to a woman who is breastfeeding their infant. Sorta.
The infant is between breastfeeding, the bottle, and solid food.

What is not germane is the photography issue. While I do photograph
both mother and child, I have more sense than to photograph them in
the act of breastfeeding.






--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[quia...@yahoo.com]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:41:30 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 2016-Apr-20 19:47, quia...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> The phrase "one of the women's husband" appears in the first sentence
>> of this article:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/hraadpn
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>
>That tinyurl leads to
> https://au.yahoo.com/?p=us
>which doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you wrote. A bug in
>Yahoo's redirection system, or were you pointing to yesterday's news?

I just checked it again, and it leads to a video; the text underneath
starts with this sentence:

"Shortly after photographer Tara Ruby released a series dedicated to

working moms who breastfeed, one of the women’s husband faced backlash
at work. "
I don't know why it failed for you.

--
John

[quia...@yahoo.com]

Not trespassing, just traipsing past, at worst!

I thought it was interesting, because
1. if it were 'the husband of one of the women', and 'one of the
women' could be considered as a unit, you might transform it as they
did.
2. If you said 'one of the women's husbands', and considered 'the
women's husbands' as the group, that would be alright too, because
interpretations involving polyandry or group marriage would be
rejected.
--
John

[Peter T. Daniels]

So there would be no recourse if a would-be arsonist dressed as a firefighter in order
to gain access to a premises? Or an airplane-hijacker dressed as a pilot to gain access
to the equipment?

[quia...@yahoo.com]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:11:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:40:03 AM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <36bac511-7872-4c87...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Shortly after photographer Tara Ruby released a series dedicated to
>> >> working moms who breastfeed, one of the women's husband faced
>> >> backlash at work. According to WNEM, a New Mexico firefighter may be
>> >> put on unpaid leave because his wife was wearing his uniform while
>> >> breastfeeding.
>> >So it had nothing to do with the breastfeeding but was only a matter of
>> >unauthorized wearing of official garb. He should have been suspended for
>> >allowing _anyone_ to wear his uniform.
>>
>> There's a rule against allowing someone to wear your uniform?
>
>Does your rights-less country not have an offence of "impersonating
>an officer"?
>
>Hallowe'en costumes are designed to be instantly distinguishable from
>genuine uniforms.

That would surely require an intention to impersonate, to deceive
someone. I remember a picture where a fireman gave a child his helmet
to wear; there was no report of an arrest. The reaction here may have
more to do with someone being offended at the idea of bare teats being
used for their primary purpose.
--
John

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:17:39 AM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:

> The issue is germane to me because I have a son who is a firefighter
> and is married to a woman who is breastfeeding their infant. Sorta.
> The infant is between breastfeeding, the bottle, and solid food.
>
> What is not germane is the photography issue. While I do photograph
> both mother and child, I have more sense than to photograph them in
> the act of breastfeeding.

Until they ask you to provide an illustration for an article they want to
publish about how they are treated in public?

/dps

[Mark Brader]

"John":

"Why is John posting this?"
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "You are not the customer,
m...@vex.net you are the product."

[Mark Brader]

"Navi":
> I cross-posted...

I assume "cross" is meant here in the same sense as in "our letters
crossed in the mail (or post)". That's not what "cross-post" means
in newsgroups.

> ...with Mark...

Mike.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Do people confuse me with Mark Brader?"
m...@vex.net --Mark Barratt

[charles]

In article <5af29fdf-7fac-47dc...@googlegroups.com>, Peter

Ther woulkd probably be another sitable charge. When I was young, it was
an offence to wear the uniform of a military officer in public - but it
seems that that offence no longer exists.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Richard Tobin]

In article <5af29fdf-7fac-47dc...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> >> Does your rights-less country not have an offence of "impersonating
>> >> an officer"?

>> > There certainly is an offence of that nature.

>> Of impersonating a police officer. Not any other sort of officer.

>So there would be no recourse if a would-be arsonist dressed as a
>firefighter in order to gain access to a premises? Or an
>airplane-hijacker dressed as a pilot to gain access to the equipment?

There is recourse even if they don't dress as a firefighter or pilot.
I assume that is true in America too.

-- Richard

[Richard Tobin]

In article <eab53a45-8038-4980...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> >So it had nothing to do with the breastfeeding but was only a matter of
>> >unauthorized wearing of official garb. He should have been suspended for
>> >allowing _anyone_ to wear his uniform.

>> There's a rule against allowing someone to wear your uniform?

>Does your rights-less country

Are you incapable of discussing something without using it as an excuse
to pursue your American exceptionalist agenda?

>not have an offence of "impersonating an officer"?

If you think it is covered by such a law in America, why did you say
the officer should be suspended? Surely he (and his wife) should be
arrested and prosecuted. Were they in fact charged with such an
offence?

Here is an example of what an American state law actually says:

A person who falsely assumes or pretends to be a firefighter [...]
and takes upon himself or herself to act as such, or to require any
other person to aid or assist him or her in a matter pertaining to
the duty of any such officer, commits a felony [...]

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

There's just the minor problem of proving intent.

It's probably not all that difficult to prove arson or hijacking. But isn't
it a good idea to stop it before it happens?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 3:30:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <eab53a45-8038-4980...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> >So it had nothing to do with the breastfeeding but was only a matter of
> >> >unauthorized wearing of official garb. He should have been suspended for
> >> >allowing _anyone_ to wear his uniform.
> >> There's a rule against allowing someone to wear your uniform?
> >Does your rights-less country
>
> Are you incapable of discussing something without using it as an excuse
> to pursue your American exceptionalist agenda?

It only appears as such when you are oblivious to the surrounding context.

> >not have an offence of "impersonating an officer"?
>
> If you think it is covered by such a law in America, why did you say
> the officer should be suspended? Surely he (and his wife) should be
> arrested and prosecuted. Were they in fact charged with such an
> offence?

Does "offence" mean something more drastic in your rightsless country than
"offense" Over Here? Misuse of a uniform might be a violation of a regulation,
not a criminal act.

> Here is an example of what an American state law actually says:
>
> A person who falsely assumes or pretends to be a firefighter [...]
> and takes upon himself or herself to act as such, or to require any
> other person to aid or assist him or her in a matter pertaining to
> the duty of any such officer, commits a felony [...]

That's certainly a pointer in the relevant direction. Is it from the state
in which the scandal of breastfeeding occurred?

Though the wording is so shoddy that no defense attorney could possibly fail
to get an acquittal. "falsely assumes a firefighter" or "falsely assumes
to be a firefighter"?

[Cheryl]

She was doing it as part of a photo series on working mothers who
breastfeed and if she is working, it's apparently not as a firefighter.

But everyone is getting worked up about the misuse of the uniform and
not the misleading photo of the woman.

> "Impersonation" is not at issue, and it's a rather silly charge. To
> "impersonate" requires the pretense of appearing to be what you are
> not.

Well, it does seem to be a lot of fuss over very little (as you say
below) and it is possible that is some places rules against
impersonation apply to firefighters. But it does appear she is
impersonating, in some sense, a breast-feeding firefighter.

> My son is a firefighter and is not aware of any rule against allowing
> his wife to wear any part of his uniform as long as his wife is not
> falsely presenting herself as a firefighter.
>
> The story seems unduly hyped-up. It is highly inconceivable that the
> wife was wearing his (entire) uniform. A shirt or a jacket, maybe,
> but not the entire uniform. It wouldn't induce milk flow for her to
> be wearing his helmet or boots.
>
> Some men, and some women, feel that breastfeeding done where it is
> observable by the public is offensive. My own feeling is it is
> acceptable done in public with a towel discreetly draped, but it is in
> somewhat bad taste without the towel or other covering. Not
> offensive, but in poor taste.
>
> The issue is germane to me because I have a son who is a firefighter
> and is married to a woman who is breastfeeding their infant. Sorta.
> The infant is between breastfeeding, the bottle, and solid food.
>
> What is not germane is the photography issue. While I do photograph
> both mother and child, I have more sense than to photograph them in
> the act of breastfeeding.

There's a series of ads on the local city buses advocating
breastfeeding. I swear in at least one and maybe all of them the women's
tops are rather badly photoshopped. They aren't, to my eye, photos of
women breastfeeding with a discreetly draped top, but of women
breastfeeding through the fabric of a top.

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Hallowe'en costumes are designed to be instantly distinguishable from
> genuine uniforms.

By coïncidence, I came across this in another newsgroup recently:

Police arrest stripper 22 times for impersonating an officer

A police force has been criticised after spending £170,000 to arrest
a stripper 22 times for impersonating an officer.

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4304955/Police-arrest-stripper-22-times-for-impersonating-an-officer.html>


--
I have a natural revulsion to any operating system that shows so
little planning as to have to named all of its commands after
digestive noises (awk, grep, fsck, nroff).
_The UNIX-HATERS Handbook_

[Oliver Cromm]

* Tony Cooper:

> Some men, and some women, feel that breastfeeding done where it is
> observable by the public is offensive. My own feeling is it is
> acceptable done in public with a towel discreetly draped, but it is in
> somewhat bad taste without the towel or other covering. Not offensive,
> but in poor taste.
>
> The issue is germane to me because I have a son who is a firefighter and
> is married to a woman who is breastfeeding their infant. Sorta. The
> infant is between breastfeeding, the bottle, and solid food.
>
> What is not germane is the photography issue. While I do photograph
> both mother and child, I have more sense than to photograph them in the
> act of breastfeeding.

Then I hope you also have better sense than to photograph a couple kissing
- another act that similarly can be not offensive, but in poor taste if
done in public without exercising some discretion.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

[RH Draney]

On 4/20/2016 12:45 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 3:30:04 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>
>> A person who falsely assumes or pretends to be a firefighter [...]
>> and takes upon himself or herself to act as such, or to require any
>> other person to aid or assist him or her in a matter pertaining to
>> the duty of any such officer, commits a felony [...]
>

> Though the wording is so shoddy that no defense attorney could possibly fail
> to get an acquittal. "falsely assumes a firefighter" or "falsely assumes
> to be a firefighter"?

Misdistributed reading...the phrase is "falsely assumes to be a
firefighter", an awkward but legally permissible condition clearly meant
to prevent the defense "I never *said* I was a fireman, he just inferred
it from my outfit and I didn't bother correcting him"....r

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 20:42:46 -0000 (UTC), Oliver Cromm
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> Some men, and some women, feel that breastfeeding done where it is
>> observable by the public is offensive. My own feeling is it is
>> acceptable done in public with a towel discreetly draped, but it is in
>> somewhat bad taste without the towel or other covering. Not offensive,
>> but in poor taste.
>>
>> The issue is germane to me because I have a son who is a firefighter and
>> is married to a woman who is breastfeeding their infant. Sorta. The
>> infant is between breastfeeding, the bottle, and solid food.
>>
>> What is not germane is the photography issue. While I do photograph
>> both mother and child, I have more sense than to photograph them in the
>> act of breastfeeding.
>
>Then I hope you also have better sense than to photograph a couple kissing
>- another act that similarly can be not offensive, but in poor taste if
>done in public without exercising some discretion.

You miss my point. I have more sense than to photograph *my*
daughter-in-law in the act of breastfeeding. I would photograph her
kissing her husband.

It's the act of taking the photograph, not what the subjects are
doing, that I'm considering.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

The photo shows her wearing the jacket and helmet.
http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/d68689da787f58be35da9688b5c9ef4e

>Some men, and some women, feel that breastfeeding done where it is
>observable by the public is offensive. My own feeling is it is
>acceptable done in public with a towel discreetly draped, but it is in
>somewhat bad taste without the towel or other covering. Not
>offensive, but in poor taste.
>
>The issue is germane to me because I have a son who is a firefighter
>and is married to a woman who is breastfeeding their infant. Sorta.
>The infant is between breastfeeding, the bottle, and solid food.
>
>What is not germane is the photography issue. While I do photograph
>both mother and child, I have more sense than to photograph them in
>the act of breastfeeding.
>

--

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 4:15:07 PM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2016-04-20, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Hallowe'en costumes are designed to be instantly distinguishable from
> > genuine uniforms.
>
> By coïncidence, I came across this in another newsgroup recently:
>
> Police arrest stripper 22 times for impersonating an officer
>
> A police force has been criticised after spending £170,000 to arrest
> a stripper 22 times for impersonating an officer.
>
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4304955/Police-arrest-stripper-22-times-for-impersonating-an-officer.html>

Well, consider the source. But why would it cost £7727.272727272727 to
arrest someone?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Sorry, but I can't imagine what "X assumes to be Y" could mean.

Your sense would be conveyed by "is falsely assumed or pretends to be," but
that puts the onus squarely on the false-assumer, not on the costumed person.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <29d4cf2e-cfe1-45fe...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> >So there would be no recourse if a would-be arsonist dressed as a
>> >firefighter in order to gain access to a premises? Or an
>> >airplane-hijacker dressed as a pilot to gain access to the equipment?

>> There is recourse even if they don't dress as a firefighter or pilot.
>> I assume that is true in America too.

>There's just the minor problem of proving intent.

Good. That's exactly what they should have to prove.

>It's probably not all that difficult to prove arson or hijacking. But isn't
>it a good idea to stop it before it happens?

Do you think any case of arson or hijacking has ever been prevented
by such a law?

-- Richard

[Richard Tobin]

In article <a41d63a9-2f25-448c...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> Here is an example of what an American state law actually says:
>>
>> A person who falsely assumes or pretends to be a firefighter [...]
>> and takes upon himself or herself to act as such, or to require any
>> other person to aid or assist him or her in a matter pertaining to
>> the duty of any such officer, commits a felony [...]

>That's certainly a pointer in the relevant direction. Is it from the state
>in which the scandal of breastfeeding occurred?

No idea.

>Though the wording is so shoddy that no defense attorney could possibly fail
>to get an acquittal. "falsely assumes a firefighter" or "falsely assumes
>to be a firefighter"?

It seems to be an old usage still found in American law. Compare this
from section 912 of title 18 of the US code:

Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee
acting under the authority of the United States or any department,
agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended
character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of
value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.

The relevant definition from the OED is "to put forth claims or
pretensions; to claim, pretend". It has an example from Gibbon
"witnesses who had or assumed to have knowledge of the fact".

-- Richard

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Apr-21 02:46, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:11:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:40:03 AM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> In article <36bac511-7872-4c87...@googlegroups.com>,

>>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>

>>>>> Shortly after photographer Tara Ruby released a series dedicated to
>>>>> working moms who breastfeed, one of the women's husband faced
>>>>> backlash at work. According to WNEM, a New Mexico firefighter may be
>>>>> put on unpaid leave because his wife was wearing his uniform while
>>>>> breastfeeding.
>>>> So it had nothing to do with the breastfeeding but was only a matter of
>>>> unauthorized wearing of official garb. He should have been suspended for
>>>> allowing _anyone_ to wear his uniform.
>>>
>>> There's a rule against allowing someone to wear your uniform?
>>

>> Does your rights-less country not have an offence of "impersonating
>> an officer"?
>>

> There certainly is an offence of that nature.
>

> I think that in our courts the question would be whether wearing a
> uniform in that context could be seen as impersonation.

Nine out of ten firefighters feed their children while attending a fire!

There's a lot of impersonation, for financial gain, in TV ads.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Apr-21 03:17, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Some men, and some women, feel that breastfeeding done where it is
> observable by the public is offensive. My own feeling is it is
> acceptable done in public with a towel discreetly draped, but it is in
> somewhat bad taste without the towel or other covering. Not
> offensive, but in poor taste.

You can't and shouldn't legislate against poor taste, because there is
no general agreement about what constitutes poor taste.

Personally, I think it's offensive to object to any woman's feeding her
child in the normal and natural way.

There's a lot of hypocrisy over that subject. I was once on a bus when a
woman started breastfeeding her child. A couple of teenaged girls
opposite me acted as if they were shocked. Twenty minutes earlier, I had
seen those two girls on a crowded beach, wearing nothing but bikini bottoms.

[arth...@yahoo.com]

You are right, Mark. I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I have to admit that I didn't know the correct meaning of the term.

Gratefully,
Navi.

[Lewis]

In message <uqjehb5i79tvdbpg0...@4ax.com>

quia...@yahoo.com <quia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The phrase "one of the women's husband" appears in the first sentence
> of this article:

> http://tinyurl.com/hraadpn

> Any thoughts?

Are you confused by this? It seems clear to me.


--
there were far worse things than Evil. All the demons in Hell would
torture your very soul, but that was precisely because they valued souls
very highly; Evil would always try to steal the universe, but at least
it considered the universe worth stealing. But the grey world behind
those empty eyes would trample and destroy without even according its
victims the dignity of hatred. It wouldn't even notice them. --The Light
Fantastic

[Lewis]

In message <837e6bbb-994b-44ac...@googlegroups.com>
arth...@yahoo.com <arth...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 2:47:13 AM UTC-7, J OFL wrote:
>> The phrase "one of the women's husband" appears in the first sentence
>> of this article:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/hraadpn
>>
>> Any thoughts?

> I think 'one of the women's husbands' would have been better.

Only if one of the women has multiple husbands.

--
W is for WINNIE embedded in ice
X is for XERXES devoured by mice

[Robert Bannister]

On 20/04/2016 8:32 PM, Stefan Ram wrote:

> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes:
>>> The phrase "one of the women's husband" appears in the first sentence
>>> of this article:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/hraadpn
>>> Any thoughts?

>> It is logical but awkward.
>
> »woman's« is like an adjective. It can be removed. This
> leaves us with »
>
> one of the husband
>
> «. We can now see it clearly: »One of« requires a plural.
> »husband« is not a plural.
>
It wasn't "woman's", but "women's" which is plural. That does not, of
course, render it sensible English, although I think it might be
understood in speech.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Robert Bannister]

On 21/04/2016 12:11 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:40:03 AM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <36bac511-7872-4c87...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Shortly after photographer Tara Ruby released a series dedicated to
>>>> working moms who breastfeed, one of the women's husband faced
>>>> backlash at work. According to WNEM, a New Mexico firefighter may be
>>>> put on unpaid leave because his wife was wearing his uniform while
>>>> breastfeeding.
>>> So it had nothing to do with the breastfeeding but was only a matter of
>>> unauthorized wearing of official garb. He should have been suspended for
>>> allowing _anyone_ to wear his uniform.
>>
>> There's a rule against allowing someone to wear your uniform?
>
> Does your rights-less country not have an offence of "impersonating
> an officer"?

Only police and military, to the best of my knowledge, although I
suppose being dressed as a fire-fighter at the scene of a fire might be
different. "Impersonating" requires a bit more than just wearing the
uniform - you need to actually attempt to pass yourself off as one.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:33:31 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 2016-Apr-21 03:17, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> Some men, and some women, feel that breastfeeding done where it is
>> observable by the public is offensive. My own feeling is it is
>> acceptable done in public with a towel discreetly draped, but it is in
>> somewhat bad taste without the towel or other covering. Not
>> offensive, but in poor taste.
>
>You can't and shouldn't legislate against poor taste, because there is
>no general agreement about what constitutes poor taste.

I'm not aware of any legislation in the US against the display of poor
taste. We not only do not legislated against it, but we have
displayed it in front of millions in the Republican debates.

>Personally, I think it's offensive to object to any woman's feeding her
>child in the normal and natural way.

The objection, by those that object, is not the feeding but the
exposure.

>
>There's a lot of hypocrisy over that subject. I was once on a bus when a
>woman started breastfeeding her child. A couple of teenaged girls
>opposite me acted as if they were shocked. Twenty minutes earlier, I had
>seen those two girls on a crowded beach, wearing nothing but bikini bottoms.

There is a time-and-place aspect.

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 04:47:05 -0500, quiasmox wrote:

> The phrase "one of the women's husband" appears in the first sentence of
> this article:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/hraadpn
>
> Any thoughts?

Yes: awkward and no doubt written in haste.

Probably the minimal fix would be "one such woman's husband".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Do you know that none has?

[Richard Tobin]

In article <e8796ce0-4013-4740...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> >It's probably not all that difficult to prove arson or hijacking. But isn't
>> >it a good idea to stop it before it happens?

>> Do you think any case of arson or hijacking has ever been prevented
>> by such a law?

>Do you know that none has?

I'm not in favour of laws prohibiting things when there are no
examples to suggest that they are needed.

-- Richard

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

That seems reasonable.

I had been wondereing whether it was badly-worded use of "assume"
meaning to "put on" as in "put on clothes", in this case a uniform.

II. To take upon oneself, put on, undertake.
4.
a. trans. To take upon oneself, put on (a garb, aspect, form, or
character).
5.
a. To take to oneself formally (the insignia of office or symbol of
a vocation); to undertake (an office or duty).

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

It was more than arrest, he was held in custody and taken to court.

The report may have bundled together the cost of arrest, holding in
custody (123 hours in total) and the cost of the time of the police
officers giving evidence in court.

[Peter T. Daniels]

So they spent 22 x 123 = 2706 hr arresting him in toto, which works out to
£62.82335550628234/hr. I guess it was a bargain.

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-20, Oliver Cromm wrote:

> * Tony Cooper:
>
>> Some men, and some women, feel that breastfeeding done where it is
>> observable by the public is offensive. My own feeling is it is
>> acceptable done in public with a towel discreetly draped, but it is in
>> somewhat bad taste without the towel or other covering. Not offensive,
>> but in poor taste.
>>
>> The issue is germane to me because I have a son who is a firefighter and
>> is married to a woman who is breastfeeding their infant. Sorta. The
>> infant is between breastfeeding, the bottle, and solid food.
>>
>> What is not germane is the photography issue. While I do photograph
>> both mother and child, I have more sense than to photograph them in the
>> act of breastfeeding.
>
> Then I hope you also have better sense than to photograph a couple kissing
> - another act that similarly can be not offensive, but in poor taste if
> done in public without exercising some discretion.

The photography is even more likely to be a problem if (at least) one
of them is not supposed to be kissing the other, e.g., married to
someone else.

Of course, even photographing people in a parade can get them in
trouble in unusual circumstances (_Sons of the Desert_).


--
I only regret that I have but one shirt to give for my country.
--- Abbie Hoffman

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:08:04 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2016-04-20, Oliver Cromm wrote:
>
>> * Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> Some men, and some women, feel that breastfeeding done where it is
>>> observable by the public is offensive. My own feeling is it is
>>> acceptable done in public with a towel discreetly draped, but it is in
>>> somewhat bad taste without the towel or other covering. Not offensive,
>>> but in poor taste.
>>>
>>> The issue is germane to me because I have a son who is a firefighter and
>>> is married to a woman who is breastfeeding their infant. Sorta. The
>>> infant is between breastfeeding, the bottle, and solid food.
>>>
>>> What is not germane is the photography issue. While I do photograph
>>> both mother and child, I have more sense than to photograph them in the
>>> act of breastfeeding.
>>
>> Then I hope you also have better sense than to photograph a couple kissing
>> - another act that similarly can be not offensive, but in poor taste if
>> done in public without exercising some discretion.
>
>The photography is even more likely to be a problem if (at least) one
>of them is not supposed to be kissing the other, e.g., married to
>someone else.

The comment was about me photographing someone. No matter how
inappropriate the act I photograph, it's what I do with that
photograph that determines whether or not there is a problem.

An unpublished photograph is a tree falling in the woods where there
is no one around.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <nfa07u$2383$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,

Or even when some think they are needed. There was a general foofraw
over here back in the day when American flags were being burned. People
got extremely upset, and I think there was a movement to add a
Constitutional amendment prohibiting it. Fortunately, it all went away.

--
charles

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 9:53:31 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:08:04 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
> >On 2016-04-20, Oliver Cromm wrote:
> >> * Tony Cooper:

> >>> What is not germane is the photography issue. While I do photograph
> >>> both mother and child, I have more sense than to photograph them in the
> >>> act of breastfeeding.
> >> Then I hope you also have better sense than to photograph a couple kissing
> >> - another act that similarly can be not offensive, but in poor taste if
> >> done in public without exercising some discretion.
> >The photography is even more likely to be a problem if (at least) one
> >of them is not supposed to be kissing the other, e.g., married to
> >someone else.
>
> The comment was about me photographing someone. No matter how
> inappropriate the act I photograph, it's what I do with that
> photograph that determines whether or not there is a problem.

So creating child pornography is just fine, so long as it's only for
personal use and isn't disseminated?

[Peter T. Daniels]

There cannot be any question that burning a flag is a matter of "expression"
(and so is covered by the prohibition of government abridgment of speech).
Evidence? Rightwing magazines (in the 70s, at least) loved to print pictures
of mobs in other countries "burning the US flag." But it was very obvious
that in almost all cases, what was being burned wasn't an actual flag, but
a piece of cloth (or maybe paper) with some collection of red-and-white
stripes and/or some white stars on a blue background.

The outrage those photos (were intended to) provoke(d) was thus not aimed
at the burning of the US flag, but at the idea of burning the US flag. Which
also proves that the Flag is not "just a piece of cloth," as was foolishly
argued by some flag-burners (i.e., why did they bother?).

I don't expect Brits to grasp the situation at all, since they have no
compunctions about making the Union Jack -- which to some extent has
similar functions to the Stars and Stripes, or the Star-Spangled Banner --
into underpants to be pissed or shat in (however accidentally).

I suspect the French attitude toward the Tricouleur is more like the American
than like the British attitude. I don't know how other nations might view
their flags.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <03987338-ba1f-4fef...@googlegroups.com>,

I know Americans who are completely unconcerned by flag-burning, and I
have heard of Britons who are outraged by it. Personally I'm against
national symbols in general.

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 10:55:04 AM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <03987338-ba1f-4fef...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >I suspect the French attitude toward the Tricouleur is more like the American
> >than like the British attitude. I don't know how other nations might view
> >their flags.
>
> I know Americans who are completely unconcerned by flag-burning, and I
> have heard of Britons who are outraged by it.

But, as you would know if you didn't maliciously remove all context from
your quotations, my only reference to the British flag (as you inaccurately
refer to it) was to making it into underpants. That's not "outrageous"?

> Personally I'm against national symbols in general.

A good thing you never served in your nations' armed services.

[quia...@yahoo.com]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:08:17 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <837e6bbb-994b-44ac...@googlegroups.com>
> arth...@yahoo.com <arth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 2:47:13 AM UTC-7, J OFL wrote:
>>> The phrase "one of the women's husband" appears in the first sentence
>>> of this article:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/hraadpn
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>
>> I think 'one of the women's husbands' would have been better.
>
>Only if one of the women has multiple husbands.

Not necessarily. One of (the women's husbands). There's nothing that
precludes parsing it that way.

--
John

[quia...@yahoo.com]

On 21 Apr 2016 17:17:58 GMT, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:

> I also used to think so, but now I must say that there /is/
> something that precludes parsing it that way: It's exactly
> the fact that the final »s« is missing from »husband«.
>
> However, to me it would be easier to read as »the husband of
> on of the women«, and I yet need to read confirmation in a
> grammar that the possessive »'s« is strong enough to put a
> whole multi-word phrase into the possessive.

But this side-thread was about 'one of the women's husbands', with the
final 's' on husband, not about the original sentence.

--
John

[Oliver Cromm]

* Tony Cooper:

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 20:42:46 -0000 (UTC), Oliver Cromm
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> Some men, and some women, feel that breastfeeding done where it is
>>> observable by the public is offensive. My own feeling is it is
>>> acceptable done in public with a towel discreetly draped, but it is in
>>> somewhat bad taste without the towel or other covering. Not offensive,
>>> but in poor taste.
>>>
>>> The issue is germane to me because I have a son who is a firefighter and
>>> is married to a woman who is breastfeeding their infant. Sorta. The
>>> infant is between breastfeeding, the bottle, and solid food.
>>>

>>> What is not germane is the photography issue. While I do photograph
>>> both mother and child, I have more sense than to photograph them in the
>>> act of breastfeeding.
>>
>>Then I hope you also have better sense than to photograph a couple kissing
>>- another act that similarly can be not offensive, but in poor taste if
>>done in public without exercising some discretion.
>

> You miss my point. I have more sense than to photograph *my*
> daughter-in-law in the act of breastfeeding. I would photograph her
> kissing her husband.
>
> It's the act of taking the photograph, not what the subjects are
> doing, that I'm considering.

If your point was specific to your daughter-in-law, yes, I have
missed that.

But it still seems to me that this is not a matter of general
"sense", but depending on the attitudes of the people involved and
your relationship. Both in case of breastfeeding and kissing.

--
If Helen Keller is alone in the forest and falls down, does she
make a sound?

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:12:46 -0400, Oliver Cromm

I dunno about that. The word "sense", here, is used to describe "a
faculty of perception". When writing "both mother and child" having
previously referred to who the mother and child are, and "I have more
sense...", it clearly applies to the attitudes of both the
photographer (me) and the subject (my daughter-in-law). That is
specific, not general.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <a116be69-52ea-4956...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> >I suspect the French attitude toward the Tricouleur is more like the
>American
>> >than like the British attitude. I don't know how other nations might view
>> >their flags.

>> I know Americans who are completely unconcerned by flag-burning, and I
>> have heard of Britons who are outraged by it.

>But, as you would know if you didn't maliciously remove all context from
>your quotations, my only reference to the British flag (as you inaccurately
>refer to it) was to making it into underpants. That's not "outrageous"?

Whatever. You can make it into nappies (US diapers) for all I care.

>> Personally I'm against national symbols in general.

>A good thing you never served in your nations' armed services.

True for several reasons.

On the last census I answered the question "what do you feel is your
national identity" with "none".

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

Then you are perhaps not the best person to be engaging in this discussion.

Didn't you feel even a _little_ _nakhiss_ about the Queen's Birthday?

You might have a look at this famous story by Edward Everett Hale from 1863:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1863/12/the-man-without-a-country/308751/

[Richard Tobin]

In article <34153b16-36b5-496d...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> On the last census I answered the question "what do you feel is your
>> national identity" with "none".

>Then you are perhaps not the best person to be engaging in this discussion.

Ah, the English language is only for patriots.

>Didn't you feel even a _little_ _nakhiss_ about the Queen's Birthday?

I have never seen that word before, and Google does not enlighten me
("Nahkiss is a Finnish leather treatment"). Unless it means something
like "uninterested" the answer is probably no.

-- Richard

[Oliver Cromm]

* Eric Walker:

It seems to me that it could then be the husband of any
breastfeeding working woman, or at least any breastfeeding working
woman posing for a photograph, not necessarily of one of the women
in the actual series of photographs the article talks about.

--
Performance: A statement of the speed at which a computer system
works. Or rather, might work under certain circumstances. Or was
rumored to be working over in Jersey about a month ago.

[Tom Friedetzky]

On Thu Apr 21 2016 at 20:55:18 UTC, Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Whatever. You can make it into nappies (US diapers) for all I care.

Regarding "diapers", that doesn't describe the purpose very well, does
it - what with "dia" meaning "through" and all?

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Wannabe Yiddishist PeteY "Genital Herpes" Daniels wrote:
>
> Didn't you feel even a _little_ _nakhiss_ about the Queen's Birthday?
>

Once again, AUE's obnoxious little showoff (1) misuses a Yiddish term
and (2) of course misspells it.

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~

[Peter T. Daniels]

It's what you feel when you _kvell_. Naturally the sociopath oozed in with its
usual claim to know more about Yinglish than anyone else (it doesn't) but as
usual offered no illumination.

"Pride," to be colorless.

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Wannabe Yiddishist PeteY "Genital Herpes" Daniels wrote:
>

> Richard Tobin wrote:
>
[Showoff PeteY]:

>
>>> Didn't you feel even a _little_ _nakhiss_ about the Queen's
>>> Birthday?
>>
>> I have never seen that word before,
>

Because _nakhes_ (note correct spelling) is a Yiddish word rarely used
by non-Jews, except by such obnoxious showoffs as PeteY Daniels, who
then use it wrongly.

>
>> and Google does not enlighten me ("Nahkiss is a Finnish leather
>> treatment"). Unless it means something like "uninterested" the
>> answer is probably no.
>
> It's what you feel when you _kvell_.
>

OY! It's a mortal sin for a lexicographer to define a Yiddish word with
another Yiddish word. But then, ASSyriologist PeteY is not a
lexicographer but a showoff who loves to throw in twenty-dollar words
trying to impress the masses.

>
> Naturally the sociopath oozed in with its usual claim
> to know more about Yinglish than anyone else
>

No, I didn't, you goddamn lying bitch. I have *never* claimed that,
despite envious ignoranus PeteY's repeated lies.
>
> (it doesn't)
>
Oh, "it" knows a hell of a lot more about Yiddish than that crypto-Jew
Daniels, who regularly fucks up Yiddish and other languages.

>
> but as usual offered no illumination.
>

Those who know _nakhes_ need no explanation. Those who really want to
find out can Google "nakhes". I do not spoon-feed obnoxious little cretins.
>
> "Pride," to be colorless.
>
"To be colorless" has to be the apex of weaselicity! That slimy fucker
PeteY -- if he knew the meaning of _nakhes_ -- would never use that
Yiddish term when talking about a *90-year-old* woman, colorless or not!

If he weren't such a desperate showoff, PeteY would have written,
"Didn't you feel even a _little_ pride about the Queen's Birthday?

But nooooooooooooooooo! Showing off über alles!

[Dingbat]

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 2:43:31 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:00:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > On the last census I answered the question "what do you feel is your
> > national identity" with "none".
>
> Then you are perhaps not the best person to be engaging in this discussion.
>
> Didn't you feel even a _little_ _nakhiss_ about the Queen's Birthday?
>

nekhes?
https://books.google.com/books?id=s3J_AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT98&q=nekhes

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:13:29 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:00:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <a116be69-52ea-4956...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >> >I suspect the French attitude toward the Tricouleur is more like the
>> >American
>> >> >than like the British attitude. I don't know how other nations might view
>> >> >their flags.
>> >> I know Americans who are completely unconcerned by flag-burning, and I
>> >> have heard of Britons who are outraged by it.
>> >But, as you would know if you didn't maliciously remove all context from
>> >your quotations, my only reference to the British flag (as you inaccurately
>> >refer to it) was to making it into underpants. That's not "outrageous"?
>>
>> Whatever. You can make it into nappies (US diapers) for all I care.
>>
>> >> Personally I'm against national symbols in general.
>> >A good thing you never served in your nations' armed services.
>>
>> True for several reasons.
>>
>> On the last census I answered the question "what do you feel is your
>> national identity" with "none".
>
>Then you are perhaps not the best person to be engaging in this discussion.
>
>Didn't you feel even a _little_ _nakhiss_ about the Queen's Birthday?

The Queens 90th Birthday is "so yesterday". We are now focusing on
Shakespeare's 400th Deathday tomorrow.

[Peter T. Daniels]

We did that earlier this week. "Tomorrow" (today), the Obamas are attending a
birthday party for Her M.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 05:05:18 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

I haven't seen any mention of that. The Obamas are having/just-had lunch
with the Queen and her hubby. The Obamas may "Happy Birthday" the Queen
but that will not be the main purpose of the meeting.

This evening the Obamas will have dinner with the Duke and Duchess of
Cambridge [Will and Kate] and Prince Harry.

The events are in honour of the Obamas.

[Janet]

In article <5c2c45e2-9e95-458b...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

>
> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:35:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <34153b16-36b5-496d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >> On the last census I answered the question "what do you feel is your
> > >> national identity" with "none".
> > >Then you are perhaps not the best person to be engaging in this discussion.

There are many who identify as British but feel no particular
allegiance to the country of their birth, parents etc.

> > Ah, the English language is only for patriots.
> >
> > >Didn't you feel even a _little_ _nakhiss_ about the Queen's Birthday?
> >
> > I have never seen that word before, and Google does not enlighten me
> > ("Nahkiss is a Finnish leather treatment"). Unless it means something
> > like "uninterested" the answer is probably no.
>
> It's what you feel when you _kvell_.

another term unrecognised-by-me.

Janet

[LFS]

And my nth birthday. (I am younger than Her Maj.)

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

<smile>

The origin of the word is a type of textile fabric.

OED:

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:06:34 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:45:37 -0000 (UTC), Tom Friedetzky
><tom-...@friedetzky.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu Apr 21 2016 at 20:55:18 UTC, Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Whatever. You can make it into nappies (US diapers) for all I care.
>>
>>Regarding "diapers", that doesn't describe the purpose very well, does
>>it - what with "dia" meaning "through" and all?
>
<smile>

The origin of the word is a type of textile fabric that had nothing to
do with intercepting excreta. It seems to have come down in the world

OED:

Etymology: Middle English < Old French dyapre , diapre , originally
diaspre (Godefroy), Provençal diaspre , diaspe , in medieval Latin
diasprus adjective, diaspra , diasprum (c1023), noun (Du Cange); in
Byzantine Greek d?asp??? adjective, < d?a- (dia- prefix1) + ?sp???
white.
Early French references mention diaspre ‘que fu fais en
Costantinoble’ and ‘dyaspre d'Antioch’, and associate it with other
fabrics of Byzantine or Levantine origin. Thus, the Roman de la Rose
l. 21193 (Meon III. 294) has ‘Cendaux, molequins arrabis, Indes,
vermaux, jaunes et bis, Samis, diapres, camelos’. The word occurs in
mediæval Greek, c959, in Constantine Porphyrogenitus De Ceremoniis
Aulæ Byzant. (Bonn 1829–40, p. 528) where the ?µ?t??? or robe used
in the investment of a Rector is described as d?asp???. On the
analogy of d???e????, d?asp??? may mean ‘white at intervals, white
interspersed with other colour’; though the sense might also be
‘thoroughly’ or ‘pure white.’ In Old French, diaspre is often
described as blanc. (Italian diaspro, Spanish diaspro, and
Portuguese diaspro ‘jasper’ appear to be unconnected with French
diaspre, Provençal diaspre ‘diaper’. Du Cange has mixed up the two.
A gratuitous guess that the name was perhaps derived from Ypres in
Flanders has no etymological or historical basis.)

I.
1. The name of a textile fabric; now, and since the 15th c., applied
to a linen fabric (or an inferior fabric of ‘union’ or cotton) woven
with a small and simple pattern, formed by the different directions
of the thread, with the different reflexions of light from its
surface, and consisting of lines crossing diamond-wise, with the
spaces variously filled up by parallel lines, a central leaf or dot,
etc.
In earlier times, esp. in Old French and medieval Latin, the name
was applied to a richer and more costly fabric, apparently of
silk, woven or flowered over the surface with gold thread. See
Francisque Michel, Recherches sur les Etoffes de Soie, d'Or et
d'Argent (Paris 1852) I. 236–244.

2. A towel, napkin, or cloth of this material; a baby's napkin or
‘clout’.

II.
3. The geometrical or conventional pattern or design forming the
ground of this fabric.
1813 Edinb. Encycl. (1830) VI. 686 A design of that intermediate
kind of ornamental work which is called diaper.
1882 S. W. Beck Draper's Dict. 97 Some of the diapers are very
curious. One of them consists of a series of castles; in each are
two men holding hawks; the size of each diaper being about six
inches, and the date the fourteenth century.

4.
a. A pattern or design of the same kind, or more florid, in colour,
gilding, or low relief, used to decorate a flat surface, as a
panel, wall, etc.

<etc>

[Oliver Cromm]

* Richard Tobin:

> In article <a41d63a9-2f25-448c...@googlegroups.com>,

> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>

>>Though the wording is so shoddy that no defense attorney could possibly
>>fail to get an acquittal. "falsely assumes a firefighter" or "falsely
>>assumes to be a firefighter"?
>
> It seems to be an old usage still found in American law. Compare this
> from section 912 of title 18 of the US code:
>
> Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee
> acting under the authority of the United States or any department,
> agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended
> character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of
> value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
> three years, or both.
>
> The relevant definition from the OED is "to put forth claims or
> pretensions; to claim, pretend". It has an example from Gibbon
> "witnesses who had or assumed to have knowledge of the fact".

This meaning, or one very close to it, is still common with regard to
feelings, as in "assume indifference" or "assume an air of modesty".

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Of course you can assume an air. You can't assume a firefighter.

Some people are overlooking the distinction between transitive and intransitive
-- such as the OED in the "relevant definition" just above.

[Oliver Cromm]

* Peter T. Daniels:

I read the usage we discuss as "assume to be a firefighter". That it is
actually "assume a firefighter" seems extremely unlikely to me.

I emphasized "this meaning" because this is still a different usage from
"assume an air of", but with pretty much the same meaning ("feign,
pretend").

It is very hard to search for examples of "assume to be an X" in this
meaning, because the same construction is very common with the meaning
"make the assumption that [something] is an X".

[Richard Tobin]

In article <pan.2016.04...@mid.crommatograph.info>,

Oliver Cromm <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>> The relevant definition from the OED is "to put forth claims or
>> pretensions; to claim, pretend". It has an example from Gibbon
>> "witnesses who had or assumed to have knowledge of the fact".

>This meaning, or one very close to it, is still common with regard to
>feelings, as in "assume indifference" or "assume an air of modesty".

Similar certainly, but this one is assume + infinitive.

-- Richard

[Jerry Friedman]

Defined here (with the YIVO spelling "kveln" for the infinitive) as
"beam with pride, be delighted with, revel in".

http://www.yiddishdictionaryonline.com/

I assume it's the cognate of German /quellen/, "gush, well up, overflow",
but the meaning is a little different.

Evan Kirshenbaum, who used to post lots of good stuff here, once told
us how well his son did at his bar mitzvah. I asked him what the reading
on the nakhes meter was, and he said he'd let me know when he stopped
kvelling.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Katy Jennison]

On 21/04/2016 17:19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 10:55:04 AM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <03987338-ba1f-4fef...@googlegroups.com>,

>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>

>>> I suspect the French attitude toward the Tricouleur is more like the American
>>> than like the British attitude. I don't know how other nations might view
>>> their flags.
>>
>> I know Americans who are completely unconcerned by flag-burning, and I
>> have heard of Britons who are outraged by it.
>
> But, as you would know if you didn't maliciously remove all context from
> your quotations, my only reference to the British flag (as you inaccurately
> refer to it) was to making it into underpants. That's not "outrageous"?

I don't think most Brits would think it outrageous at all.

But if, as I deduce, you think American-flag underpants outrageous, why
doesn't this outrageosity equally apply to American-flag T-shirts, which
are available all over the place?

--
Katy Jennison

[RH Draney]

That's nothing...I was born on the -53rd birthday of Grumpy Cat....r

[RH Draney]

On 4/22/2016 3:36 PM, Katy Jennison wrote:
>
> But if, as I deduce, you think American-flag underpants outrageous, why
> doesn't this outrageosity equally apply to American-flag T-shirts, which
> are available all over the place?

A few years ago I found myself wondering how the US Postal Service can
get away with canceling a stamp with a US flag design by printing a
postmark onto it with enough ink into it to make it the stamp
unreusable...surely such treatment falls under the "defacing" clause....r

[Dingbat]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 3:38:22 AM UTC+5:30, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 7:55:31 AM UTC-6, Janet wrote:
> > In article <5c2c45e2-9e95-458b...@googlegroups.com>,
> > gram...@verizon.net says...
> > >
> > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:35:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > > > In article <34153b16-36b5-496d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> On the last census I answered the question "what do you feel is your
> > > > >> national identity" with "none".
> > > > >Then you are perhaps not the best person to be engaging in this discussion.
> >
> > There are many who identify as British but feel no particular
> > allegiance to the country of their birth, parents etc.
> >
> >
> > > > Ah, the English language is only for patriots.
> > > >
> > > > >Didn't you feel even a _little_ _nakhiss_ about the Queen's Birthday?
> > > >
> > > > I have never seen that word before, and Google does not enlighten me
> > > > ("Nahkiss is a Finnish leather treatment"). Unless it means something
> > > > like "uninterested" the answer is probably no.
> > >
> > > It's what you feel when you _kvell_.
> >
> > another term unrecognised-by-me.
>
> Defined here (with the YIVO spelling "kveln" for the infinitive) as
> "beam with pride, be delighted with, revel in".
>
> http://www.yiddishdictionaryonline.com/
>
> I assume it's the cognate of German /quellen/, "gush, well up, overflow",
> but the meaning is a little different.
>

Interesting. The Q gospel, a hypothetical source of the synoptic gospels, comes from German Quelle, meaning "source".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
In light of your meaning, that seems to suggest a gushing spring that's the source of a river.

[Peter T. Daniels]

T-shirts are not made of cut-up American flags. They have flags (intact ones)
printed on them, or else arrangements (like bunting) of stars and stripes.

[Peter T. Daniels]

That was only a problem in Israel, where one of the Historic Synagogues in
a series had a stained-glass window incorporating the Tetragrammaton, which
was just barely visible under a magnifying glass, yet the religious nutters
made exactly that objection. (The stamp wasn't withdrawn. That was before
Bibi's time.)

[Dingbat]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 3:17:13 PM UTC+5:30, J OFL wrote:
> The phrase "one of the women's husband" appears in the first sentence
> of this article:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/hraadpn
>
> Any thoughts?
>

This article uses "genius" to mean "ingenious"

This breast cancer charity found a genius way to get round female nipple censorship
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/this-breast-cancer-charity-found-a-genius-way-to-get-round-female-nipple-censorship--WyHnrlnuWb
An Argentinian breast cancer charity called MACMA had the genius idea of using 'man boobs' in a tutorial.

[Peter T. Daniels]

French "source" exhibits the same polysemy.

(English uses "wellspring" as a highfalutin' version of the 'origin' sense.)

[Snidely]

Just this Thursday, Richard Tobin explained that ...

> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

[context already missing ... flag abuse here]

>>> On the last census I answered the question "what do you feel is your
>>> national identity" with "none".
>
>> Then you are perhaps not the best person to be engaging in this discussion.
>

> Ah, the English language is only for patriots.

If that's the only conclusion you can draw from PTD's comment, then I
feel sad about your ability to reason.

/dps

--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)

[Richard Tobin]

In article <ebe780ae-3d3d-49d5...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>French "source" exhibits the same polysemy.
>
>(English uses "wellspring" as a highfalutin' version of the 'origin' sense.)

Also font/fount/fountain.

-- Richard

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

That is a normal, informal, use of "genius" as an adjective.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/genius

adjective
informal
Very clever or ingenious:
"a genius idea"
"this book was absolutely genius in parts"
"Whoever had the 'genius' idea to make Cole Porter 'hip with the
kids' needs a brain transplant." {sarcastic use}
"The genius idea in Shrek 2 is Shrek turning into a handsome hero."
"The opening is the same kind of slow music as the 'New World'
largo, without the genius touches (like the opening chordal
passage) that distinguish the Dvorak."

[Janet]

In article <38d259db-7a91-46de...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

Underpants aren't made of cut-up British flags either.

They have flags (intact ones)
> printed on them, or else arrangements (like bunting) of stars and stripes.

How twee.


Janet.

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Apr-22 23:55, Janet wrote:
> In article <5c2c45e2-9e95-458b...@googlegroups.com>,
> gram...@verizon.net says...
>>
>> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:35:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> In article <34153b16-36b5-496d...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On the last census I answered the question "what do you feel is your
>>>>> national identity" with "none".
>>>> Then you are perhaps not the best person to be engaging in this discussion.
>
> There are many who identify as British but feel no particular
> allegiance to the country of their birth, parents etc.

An important point. There are certainly many Australians who
self-identify as Australians, and who clearly do love their country, but
do not love the power structures of the country.

I'm one of those. I love my country, but I don't love my government or
my military or the banks and mining companies who run the country. I
consider patriotism to be a primitive aberration, an evil that needs to
be stamped out. I would not willingly salute the flag. I am happy to
sing the national anthem, with particular emphasis on the anti-racist
lines that the "Reclaim Australia" mob would like to delete.

On a census form I would respond "Australian" for "national identity",
but I can understand those who would answer "none".

I personally have a deep affection for the physical attributes of my
country: the vegetation, the beaches, the deserts, the mountains, the
weather, and so on. This is where I grew up, this is where I get my
sense of country. This does not translate at all into affection for
symbols like the flag and the rulers and the people who would sell out
our values for commercial advantage.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

If you are feeling tweely patriotic and like your underwear on the
scanty side:
http://www.unionjackwear.co.uk/ladies-fashion-c3/union-jack-ladies-underwear-c93

[Peter Moylan]

I looked up people with whom I share a birthday, and the only name I
recognised was Steve Jobs. Why are there so many famous people I've
never heard of? I assume that they're famous for being famous, but that
didn't get them a mention on my local newspaper or other media that I've
noticed.

[Katy Jennison]

On 23/04/2016 15:23, Peter Moylan wrote:

> I personally have a deep affection for the physical attributes of my
> country: the vegetation, the beaches, the deserts, the mountains, the
> weather, and so on. This is where I grew up, this is where I get my
> sense of country. This does not translate at all into affection for
> symbols like the flag and the rulers and the people who would sell out
> our values for commercial advantage.

I feel much the same about England, barring the bit about the deserts.
(Desserts, yes.)

--
Katy Jennison

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2016-04-22 10:52:22 +0000, Peter Duncanson [BrE] said:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:13:29 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:00:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> In article <a116be69-52ea-4956...@googlegroups.com>,

>>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I suspect the French attitude toward the Tricouleur is more like the
>>>> American
>>>>>> than like the British attitude. I don't know how other nations might view
>>>>>> their flags.
>>>>> I know Americans who are completely unconcerned by flag-burning, and I
>>>>> have heard of Britons who are outraged by it.
>>>> But, as you would know if you didn't maliciously remove all context from
>>>> your quotations, my only reference to the British flag (as you inaccurately
>>>> refer to it) was to making it into underpants. That's not "outrageous"?
>>>

>>> Whatever. You can make it into nappies (US diapers) for all I care.
>>>

>>>>> Personally I'm against national symbols in general.
>>>> A good thing you never served in your nations' armed services.
>>>
>>> True for several reasons.
>>>

>>> On the last census I answered the question "what do you feel is your
>>> national identity" with "none".
>>
>> Then you are perhaps not the best person to be engaging in this discussion.
>>

>> Didn't you feel even a _little_ _nakhiss_ about the Queen's Birthday?
>

> The Queens 90th Birthday is "so yesterday". We are now focusing on
> Shakespeare's 400th Deathday tomorrow.

Not to mention Cervantes's 400th Deathday (not actually the same day,
however, because Spain adopted the Gregorian calendar a long time
before the UK did).

--
athel