Giuiliani and Trump, we're taking burlesque on the road

[micky]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?478246-1/trump-campaign-alleges-voter-fraud-states-plans-lawsuits

I'll admit I haven't read all the context, so maybe it makes sense, but
it's still worth noting.

Let me add that when you search in a C-span page like this, it searches
the text that is not showing as well as what is. Giuliani iiuc gave a
statement to the press and even maybe answered questions:


LET ME ANSWER ONE OTHER THING TO THE QUESTION, YOUR QUESTION IS
FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED WHEN YOU ASK WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE. YOU CLEARLY
DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL PROCESS. WHAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR IN THE COURT
IS TO NOT HAVE THE CERTIFICATION OF FALSE RESULTS TO SAY HOLD ON A
MINUTE, WE HAVE EVIDENCE WE WILL PRESENT TO THE COURT. WE HAVEN'T HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY YET TO PRESENT THAT TO THE COURT. WE'RE GIVING YOU AN
OVERVIEW AND A PREVIEW OF WHAT WE'VE DISCOVERED, BUT NO COURT HAS --
WE'VE HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO, AND WE HAVE ALLEGATIONS PENDING, SO WITH
THAT SCORE, OUR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS OR INJUNCTIONS TO NOT
CERTIFY FALSE RESULTS. WE'RE VERY HAPPY THAT MICHIGAN, THE REASON WHY WE
DISMISSED THAT LAWSUIT TODAY, MICHIGAN IN WAYNE COUNTY THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO CERTIFY THAT, 71% OF COUNTIES HAVE INCONSISTENT DATA. NO PERSON IN
THIS ROOM OR IN THIS COUNTRY SHOULD WANT STATES TO RUSH THROUGH AND
CORONATE A PRESIDENT WITH FALSE RESULTS.

*This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.
[Closed captioning these days is usually done by a computer using voice
recognition. It's darn good but it's not perfect.]

Isn't it getting late to have not presented evidence. On Nov. 20th it's
been 17 days. They have iiuc at the very most 18 left. But aassuming
they don't certify, they need days to cure the reason it can't be
certified, to count again if need be, and to certify. And half the time
is gone already. Georgia and other states are supposed to certify by
today the 20th. Oh, yeah, that's the plan, to tie things up and then
say the legistlatures have the right.

OOTOH, CNN says that Rump knows he's lost and he's doing this to punsih
democrats for staining his presidency with the Russia influence
investigation. IOW, hee's staining his own presidency to protest
someone staining his presidencey.

[Patriot]

On 11/20/20 4:30 AM, micky wrote:
> OOTOH, CNN says that Rump knows he's lost and he's doing this to punsih
> democrats for staining his presidency with the Russia influence
> investigation. IOW, hee's staining his own presidency to protest
> someone staining his presidencey.

Let me shed some light. It will only take 3min27sec out of your busy day.

Christina Bobb: Biden lost. Trump won’t let him steal it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyghX__xB2Q

[trader_4]

Was this from his press conference yesterday? You left out the best part, where he
alleges that this was a conspiracy, centrally orchestrated, across all the key states.
And that batshit crazy woman, another legal ace, Sidney Powell, she was just about
crying about how our democracy is being ruined by foreigners linked to Hugo Chavez
who rigged the voting machines. Or maybe she was about to cry because she saw
the hair dye running down both sides of Rudy's face?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gEh-tRmCtc

And no, that's not faked, Google for it, the major media all have it.

Just another shit show in Crazytown. You can't make this stuff up. It would be hysterical
if what they were trying to do was not so evil and despicable.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Allegations are not evidence. Every time Rudy goes to court it seems
the dog ate his case file.

Did you see him yesterday wiping snot all over his face? Hair dye
dripping? He belongs in a retirement home.

[hub...@ccanoemail.ca]

>
>Did you see him yesterday wiping snot all over his face? Hair dye
>dripping? He belongs in a retirement home.
>

The late-night comedy shows were _all over_ those images !
I had a mental picture of a gangster at the back of the room -
- staring intently at Rudy - with his hand inside his jacket
.. as if on his heater .. thus all the profuse sweating .. :-)
John T.

[Scott Lurndal]

Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx> writes:
>On 11/20/2020 7:14 AM, Patriot wrote:

>>
>Allegations are not evidence. Every time Rudy goes to court it seems
>the dog ate his case file.

Ed, Please don't feed the troll.

devnull:
User-Agent: Xnews/2004.06.21
Message-ID: <0qOrH.797012$eN2.2...@fx47.iad>

Jeremy:
User-Agent: Xnews/2004.06.21
Message-ID: <2AOrH.306475$1a1.2...@fx18.iad>

Carlos Peraza:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3
Message-ID: <cESrH.1184683$DO2.1...@fx45.iad>

Jimmy Kauffenhac.llc (Cough and Hack?)
User-Agent: Xnews/2004.06.21
Message-ID: <RnSrH.797206$eN2.4...@fx47.iad>

Barry Soetoro
User-Agent: Xnews/2004.06.21
Message-ID: <1gPrH.200885$NB.1...@fx20.iad>

Grumpy Old White Guy
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3
Message-ID: <bmRrH.435159$Av7.3...@fx34.iad>

BeetleJuice:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3
Message-ID: <YgZrH.322324$GQ4.1...@fx02.iad>

Roger Oveur:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3
Message-ID: <JgasH.322327$GQ4...@fx02.iad>

Vi Ruse:
User-Agent: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
Message-ID: <6L8sH.799525$eN2.5...@fx47.iad>

Sniffy Joe & Headboard
User-Agent: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
Message-ID: <uAtsH.503315$zX4.1...@fx41.iad>

Patriot:
User-Agent: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
Message-ID: <H%NtH.1502$Gw2...@fx24.iad>

Clown News Network:
User-Agent: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
Message-ID: <OVNtH.1257$xQ7...@fx28.iad>

[trader_4]

Sure enough did. What was up with that? Just for men, you put it on, wait a few minutes,
then take a shower and it washed off. Is Rudy using shoe polish? This whole thing is
just such a despicable shit show. Trump got impeached believing Rudy's BS about what
he found in Ukraine. Now we're getting to watch how credible Rudy is in realtime.
The lies that Rudy got Trump believing, include nonsense that anyone can fact check
in two minutes on Google, like the DNC servers being in Ukraine, Crowdstrike being a
Ukranian company, owned by some wealthy Ukranian, etc. Now the Trump/Rudy shit
show has moved on and gotten, much, much worse. They are tearing at the very fabric
of our democracy, with BS. And Rudy either has to know that almost everything he has
amounts to nothing or else he doesn't even care to check. Same with that POS Sidney
Powell. She's claiming that Dominion software has the built-in ability to deliberately
skew the results and that it was used to steal the election, that they are linked to
Hugo Chavez, etc. Used to be this was found at places like Alex Jones. Now the
president and his lawyers are spewing it forth. It certainly proves how we've been
right about how despicable, how stupid, how mentally ill Trump was all along.

[Alexandria Ocasio-Pelosi]

Your team's clown car is sinking, Scotty!

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 20 Nov 2020 09:59:29 -0500, Ed Pawlowski

<e...@snet.xxx> wrote:

>
>Allegations are not evidence. Every time Rudy goes to court it seems
>the dog ate his case file.
>
>Did you see him yesterday wiping snot all over his face? Hair dye
>dripping? He belongs in a retirement home.

That was strange.

[Dean Hoffman]

I guess Rudy hasn't actually been in a courtroom for a bunch of
years prior to this fall. The judge asked him a basic question and
he couldn't answer it. It had something to do with the degree of
remedy if I remember correctly.

[angelica...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 11:53:42 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 9:59:40 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 11/20/2020 7:14 AM, Patriot wrote:
> > > On 11/20/20 4:30 AM, micky wrote:
> > >> OOTOH, CNN says that Rump knows he's lost and he's doing this to punsih
> > >> democrats for staining his presidency with the Russia influence
> > >> investigation. IOW, hee's staining his own presidency to protest
> > >> someone staining his presidencey.
> > >
> > >
> > > Let me shed some light. It will only take 3min27sec out of your busy day.
> > >
> > > Christina Bobb: Biden lost. Trump won’t let him steal it.
> > >
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyghX__xB2Q
> > >
> > >
> > Allegations are not evidence. Every time Rudy goes to court it seems
> > the dog ate his case file.
> >
> > Did you see him yesterday wiping snot all over his face? Hair dye
> > dripping? He belongs in a retirement home.
> Sure enough did. What was up with that? Just for men, you put it on, wait a few minutes,
> then take a shower and it washed off. Is Rudy using shoe polish?

There is temporary dye that washes out. Or, apparently, rinses out with sweat.

Perhaps Rudy used too much.

Dumbass vain old men.

Cindy Hamilton

[Dean Hoffman]

He could've just put on a Mets baseball cap.

[Jim Joyce]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 08:53:35 -0800 (PST), trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 9:59:40 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 11/20/2020 7:14 AM, Patriot wrote:
>> > On 11/20/20 4:30 AM, micky wrote:
>> >> OOTOH, CNN says that Rump knows he's lost and he's doing this to punsih
>> >> democrats for staining his presidency with the Russia influence
>> >> investigation. IOW, hee's staining his own presidency to protest
>> >> someone staining his presidencey.
>> >
>> >
>> > Let me shed some light. It will only take 3min27sec out of your busy day.
>> >
>> > Christina Bobb: Biden lost. Trump won’t let him steal it.
>> >
>> >
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyghX__xB2Q
>> >
>> >
>> Allegations are not evidence. Every time Rudy goes to court it seems
>> the dog ate his case file.
>>
>> Did you see him yesterday wiping snot all over his face? Hair dye
>> dripping? He belongs in a retirement home.
>
>Sure enough did. What was up with that? Just for men, you put it on, wait a few minutes,
>then take a shower and it washed off. Is Rudy using shoe polish?

It looked like a product from Ron Popeil, called GLH (Great Looking Hair).
Essentially, hair in a spray can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GeF7A05zQ8

> This whole thing is
>just such a despicable shit show. Trump got impeached believing Rudy's BS about what
>he found in Ukraine. Now we're getting to watch how credible Rudy is in realtime.
>The lies that Rudy got Trump believing, include nonsense that anyone can fact check
>in two minutes on Google, like the DNC servers being in Ukraine, Crowdstrike being a
>Ukranian company, owned by some wealthy Ukranian, etc. Now the Trump/Rudy shit
>show has moved on and gotten, much, much worse. They are tearing at the very fabric
>of our democracy, with BS. And Rudy either has to know that almost everything he has
>amounts to nothing or else he doesn't even care to check. Same with that POS Sidney
>Powell. She's claiming that Dominion software has the built-in ability to deliberately
>skew the results and that it was used to steal the election, that they are linked to
>Hugo Chavez, etc. Used to be this was found at places like Alex Jones. Now the
>president and his lawyers are spewing it forth. It certainly proves how we've been
>right about how despicable, how stupid, how mentally ill Trump was all along.

The country has been in very bad shape before, but the difference this time
is that the President can't lead the country out of it because the
President is the cause of it.

[Jim Joyce]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:33:30 -0600, Dean Hoffman <deanh...@clod.com>
wrote:

<https://apnews.com/article/rudy-giuliani-returns-courtroom-trump-b81328c5a74ab348d8b7e21f93eed3f9>
A rusty Giuliani returns to the courtroom on Trump’s behalf

WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. (AP) — Rudy Giuliani, representing a client inside a
courtroom for the first time in nearly three decades, showed some rust as
he tried to make the case that President Donald Trump has been robbed of
reelection.

The former federal prosecutor and New York City mayor, who has taken over
Trump’s efforts to cast doubt on the election results, entered a courthouse
Tuesday in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, with a few dozen Trump supporters
cheering him from across the street.

Over the next several hours, he fiddled with his Twitter account, forgot
which judge he was talking to and threw around unsupported accusations
about a nationwide conspiracy by Democrats to steal the election.

Not only has no such evidence emerged since Election Day, but the federal
government’s top election security officials have deemed it the most secure
U.S. election ever. In Pennsylvania, an Associated Press canvass of county
election officials likewise unearthed no significant problems.

Nevertheless, Giuliani plowed ahead Tuesday, needling an opposing lawyer by
calling him “the man who was very angry with me, I forgot his name.”

He mistook the judge for a federal judge in a separate Pennsylvania
district who rejected a separate Trump campaign case: “I was accused of not
reading your opinion and that I did not understand it.”

And he tripped himself up over the meaning of “opacity.”

“In the plaintiffs’ counties, they were denied the opportunity to have an
unobstructed observation and ensure opacity,” Giuliani said. “I’m not quite
sure I know what opacity means. It probably means you can see, right?”

“It means you can’t,” said U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann.

“Big words, your honor,” Giuliani said.

***

The article continues, but I'll stop there. Rusty indeed, and 28 years
since arguing his last case is a very long time. It should be no surprise
that he's not doing well.

[Clare Snyder]

Too damned cheap to buy the good stuff - - -

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:35:06 -0600, Jim Joyce

<no...@none.invalid> wrote:

>
>And he tripped himself up over the meaning of “opacity.”
>
>“In the plaintiffs’ counties, they were denied the opportunity to have an
>unobstructed observation and ensure opacity,” Giuliani said. “I’m not quite
>sure I know what opacity means. It probably means you can see, right?”
>
>“It means you can’t,” said U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann.
>
>“Big words, your honor,” Giuliani said.

Big words.

I heard some Democrat call something "specious" and there have been many
prior times I wonder why people can't speak English that everyone will
understand.

I know that specious doens't just mean special, and I've known the word
for 40? years, but I still know that I never hear anyone use it in day
to day speech. If they want the public behind them, and they're not in
court, why don't they use words everyone knows?

[angelica...@yahoo.com]

Specific words have specific meanings. What would you suggest instead
of "specious"?

And yes, I might use "specious" in everyday speech if the occasion arose.

Cindy Hamilton

[Dean Hoffman]

Habit? Aren't lawyers nerds? They're not everyone. Put a lawyer
at a construction site. Is rebar an after hours club? Anyone I know can
say anhydrous and most will know exactly what he means. It's fertilizer
in my world. It's a gas and dangerous. "Puttin' on anhydrous" is a common
phrase in my world.
<https://www.tfi.org/sites/default/files/documents/ammoniafactsheet.pdf>
"Combining" isn't necessarily joining things. It's harvesting with a
specific machine in some situations.
Should there be term limits so we don't end up with the Pelosis, Bidens,
and people on this list?
<https://www.senate.gov/senators/longest_serving_senators.htm>

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 05:05:16 -0600, Dean Hoffman

<deanh...@clod.com> wrote:

>Should there be term limits so we don't end up with the Pelosis, Bidens,
>and people on this list?
><https://www.senate.gov/senators/longest_serving_senators.htm>

I'm generally opposed to term limits. They're anti-democratic.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 02:59:33 -0800 (PST),

"angelica...@yahoo.com" <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 21, 2020 at 3:10:59 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:35:06 -0600, Jim Joyce
>> <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >And he tripped himself up over the meaning of “opacity.”
>> >
>> >“In the plaintiffs’ counties, they were denied the opportunity to have an
>> >unobstructed observation and ensure opacity,” Giuliani said. “I’m not quite
>> >sure I know what opacity means. It probably means you can see, right?”
>> >
>> >“It means you can’t,” said U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann.
>> >
>> >“Big words, your honor,” Giuliani said.
>> Big words.
>>
>> I heard some Democrat call something "specious" and there have been many
>> prior times I wonder why people can't speak English that everyone will
>> understand.
>>
>> I know that specious doens't just mean special, and I've known the word
>> for 40? years, but I still know that I never hear anyone use it in day
>> to day speech. If they want the public behind them, and they're not in
>> court, why don't they use words everyone knows?
>
>Specific words have specific meanings.

I don't think he was looking for the exact shade of meaning of the word.
It certainly wasn't required to make his point.

> What would you suggest instead
>of "specious"?

Phony, false, sham (Does everyone know sham?) I don't remmeber enough
context to know if counterfit would fit.

>
>And yes, I might use "specious" in everyday speech if the occasion arose.

YOU might, but in the last 50 years, I don't think anyone I know has.

And this is just one example. When speaking to the press or someone
else who's going to put it on TV, people frequently use words that most
people never use and probably don't know.

>Cindy Hamilton

[Ed Pawlowski]

If you read the republican Party Platform for 2016 you ill see they
favor term limits. That said, the hypocrites are in there term after
term and looking for more.

I used to be against limits but given Pelosi, McConnell, Graham, and a
few more, I think they are a good idea. Maybe two terms, skip, then two
more. Too many people on a power trip it seems.

[FromTheRafters]

angelica...@yahoo.com expressed precisely :

I would use specious because it is what I meant. If I needed to dumb it
down I would say it is an argument which looks good on its surface, but
is actually wrong at its core.

An example might be that quick covid tests for the asymptomatic are
useless because they gave some particular individual two positives and
two negatives within a short time period. Sure, if the tests were
equivalent to a coin toss (with a *fair* coin) they would be pretty
useless, but deviation from fair will, in the aggregate, show blips
where clusters are.

On its surface, and for the individual, it seems uselessness is a
logical conclusion, but for the epidemiologist it still remains a
valuable tool.

> And yes, I might use "specious" in everyday speech if the occasion arose.

Such occasions arise here frequently.

[Clare Snyder]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 03:10:53 -0500, micky <NONONO...@fmguy.com>
wrote:

It really does NOT mean "special" or anything resembling it.



SPECIOUS - superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
"a specious argument"

Something like a "red herring"

1 : having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic specious
reasoning. 2 : having deceptive attraction or allure. 3 obsolete :
showy.

seeming to be right or true, but really wrong or false:

Specious is pronounced "SPEE-shuhs." Something that is specious is
attractive in a deceptive way, and if you follow the word's etymology,
you'll see why. In Middle English, this adjective meant "attractive,"
from Latin speciosus "showy, beautiful," from species "appearance,
kind, sort." Latin species is also the source of English species.

Synonyms:
spurious

false
not in accordance with the fact or reality or actuality

Synonyms:
gilded, meretricious

insincere
lacking sincerity

Advertisement


Having an attractive appearance intended to generate a favorable
response; deceptively attractive.

[Clare Snyder]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 05:05:16 -0600, Dean Hoffman <deanh...@clod.com>
wrote:

>On 11/21/20 2:10 AM, micky wrote:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:35:06 -0600, Jim Joyce
>> <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And he tripped himself up over the meaning of “opacity.”
>>>
>>> “In the plaintiffs’ counties, they were denied the opportunity to have an
>>> unobstructed observation and ensure opacity,” Giuliani said. “I’m not quite
>>> sure I know what opacity means. It probably means you can see, right?”
>>>
>>> “It means you can’t,” said U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann.
>>>
>>> “Big words, your honor,” Giuliani said.
>>
>> Big words.
>>
>> I heard some Democrat call something "specious" and there have been many
>> prior times I wonder why people can't speak English that everyone will
>> understand.
>>
>> I know that specious doens't just mean special, and I've known the word
>> for 40? years, but I still know that I never hear anyone use it in day
>> to day speech. If they want the public behind them, and they're not in
>> court, why don't they use words everyone knows?
>>
> Habit? Aren't lawyers nerds? They're not everyone. Put a lawyer
>at a construction site. Is rebar an after hours club? Anyone I know can
>say anhydrous and most will know exactly what he means.

> It's fertilizer in my world. It's a gas and dangerous. "Puttin' on anhydrous" is a common
>phrase in my world.

But that particular usage may be specious -
Anhydrous actually means "dry" as in "no water"
Your example of "anhydrous Ammonia" - which IS fertilizer (among
other things - It is used in drug production and other chemical
processes where ammonia is needed and water would inhibit the process,
or possibly destroy the plant.)

><https://www.tfi.org/sites/default/files/documents/ammoniafactsheet.pdf>
> "Combining" isn't necessarily joining things. It's harvesting with a
>specific machine in some situations.

ANd the word "combine" in that instance means using a "combination
harvester" - a combination of a reaper and a threasher in one unit

[Clare Snyder]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:55:40 -0500, micky <NONONO...@fmguy.com>
wrote:

How many people in your circles have used coulohm, or camshaft, or
plastigage, or emulsion tube,in the last 50 years? Or even Carburetor?
There are words that have specific meanings in specific fields, where
there really isn't another word that "fits the bill" so to speak.

[Clare Snyder]

I would tend to support "consecutive term limits" over "lifetime term
limits" - possibly with a 2 term "gap" requirement.
Serve up to 2, then take a break of up to 2. After serving only one
term, a single term break would? suffice - then allow "up to" 2 terms
consecutively to follow.

One on, one off - 2 on, 2 off.

[Bob F]

So, just another word for "trumptalk"?

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 15:18:47 -0500, Ed Pawlowski

<e...@snet.xxx> wrote:

>On 11/21/2020 1:48 PM, micky wrote:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 21 Nov 2020 05:05:16 -0600, Dean Hoffman
>> <deanh...@clod.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Should there be term limits so we don't end up with the Pelosis, Bidens,
>>> and people on this list?
>>> <https://www.senate.gov/senators/longest_serving_senators.htm>
>>
>> I'm generally opposed to term limits. They're anti-democratic.
>>
>
>If you read the republican Party Platform for 2016 you ill see they
>favor term limits.

Well that settles it. I'm not voting Republican.

[angelica...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, November 21, 2020 at 3:10:59 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:

> In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:35:06 -0600, Jim Joyce
> <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> >And he tripped himself up over the meaning of “opacity.”
> >
> >“In the plaintiffs’ counties, they were denied the opportunity to have an
> >unobstructed observation and ensure opacity,” Giuliani said. “I’m not quite
> >sure I know what opacity means. It probably means you can see, right?”
> >
> >“It means you can’t,” said U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann.
> >
> >“Big words, your honor,” Giuliani said.
> Big words.
>
> I heard some Democrat call something "specious" and there have been many
> prior times I wonder why people can't speak English that everyone will
> understand.
>
> I know that specious doens't just mean special,

I'm a little curious. When you read the word, "specious", do you mentally hear
it as "speecious" or "spehcious"?

Cindy Hamilton

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 22 Nov 2020 04:15:32 -0800 (PST),

"angelica...@yahoo.com" <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 21, 2020 at 3:10:59 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:35:06 -0600, Jim Joyce
>> <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >And he tripped himself up over the meaning of “opacity.”
>> >
>> >“In the plaintiffs’ counties, they were denied the opportunity to have an
>> >unobstructed observation and ensure opacity,” Giuliani said. “I’m not quite
>> >sure I know what opacity means. It probably means you can see, right?”
>> >
>> >“It means you can’t,” said U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann.
>> >
>> >“Big words, your honor,” Giuliani said.
>> Big words.
>>
>> I heard some Democrat call something "specious" and there have been many
>> prior times I wonder why people can't speak English that everyone will
>> understand.
>>
>> I know that specious doens't just mean special,

Clare and all, I can't remember why I put the word "just" in there. I
must have been planning to say, It's not just that it doesn't mean
special, it also... [something worse]. But it looked like I was saying
it did also mean special. No, of course not.

>
>I'm a little curious. When you read the word, "specious", do you mentally hear
>it as "speecious" or "spehcious"?

I don't think I've read it often, but I know it's pronounced speeshus.

One could confuse it with precious, prehshus. English pronunciation is
not obvious.

On the other species is pronounced spee seez. Not spee sheez. People
who say the latter are confusing the word with special.

And specie, the money, is pronounced spee see.

>Cindy Hamilton