How to say it without saying it

[Hibou]

The King greeting Liz Truss:

<https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2022/oct/13/back-again-dear-oh-dear-king-charles-holds-audience-with-liz-truss-video>

HM: "Back again? ... Dear, oh dear."

Says it all. Marvellous language, English.

[occam]

Her next visit to the palace is going to be even more interesting. After
the mother of all U-turns, more people are distancing themselves from
Truss.

[Imagined exchange] CiiiR: "Going so soon? Dear, oh dear."

[Janet]

In article <tiql4f$1778$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, h...@b.ou
says...

Only, we don't tolerate public commentary on politics by
Monarchs. It could cost him his brand new job before it
even gets started.

Just like soon-to-be-ex PM Truss really. Her dimwitted
hubris risks bringing down her own institution.

Janet

[occam]

Soon to be? It has happened, Janet. Keep your ears to the ground for the
final meeting between the feather-weight PM and the feather-brained king.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Did he at any point sit in on the regular private meetings between the
PM and the Queen, so as to learn the ropes?

[Sam Plusnet]

Nope. She stays in office until a new loser is selected.

P.S. There seems to be a significant amount of backing for...

Boris Johnson.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter T. Daniels]

The BBC hasn't been able to get anyone to actually say so in public.

[occam]

That would be like retrieving a discarded doughnut out of the bin, for
another bite. Eew!

[Tony Cooper]

One sentence for you, but "Seinfeld" made it into an entire episode.
An eclair, not a doughnut, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6arTgjbHVS4
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

[Peter Moylan]

When I look at possible replacements for her, it looks as if that party
is in deep trouble.

It seems to be a frequent feature of conservative politics to suppress
the talented people who are seen as a threat to the leader. Then, when
it's time to select a new leader, there's nobody good left.

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

[occam]

Where would you put Boris in this context? 'Tainted' or 'talented'? He
seems to be one of the options being considered for the next round!

I hope Trump is not watching UK politics and thinking: "Hmm... if a
comeback works for Boris, it may work for me too." (I know he has *no*
talent whatsoever, but that does not seem to bother the American people.)

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 21.10.2022 kl. 08.48 skrev occam:

> I hope Trump is not watching UK politics and thinking:

Trump is trying again no matter what happens in other countries.

--
Bertel

[Hibou]

Le 21/10/2022 à 04:22, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>
> When I look at possible replacements for her, it looks as if that party
> is in deep trouble.
>
> It seems to be a frequent feature of conservative politics to suppress
> the talented people who are seen as a threat to the leader. Then, when
> it's time to select a new leader, there's nobody good left.

Just conservative politics? Is there talent in Labour?

Perhaps all leaders attempt to neutralise threats. Bill S. has Caesar
say this:

"Let me have men about me that are fat,
"Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep a-nights...."

[occam]

On 21/10/2022 10:45, Hibou wrote:
> Le 21/10/2022 à 04:22, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>>
>> When I look at possible replacements for her, it looks as if that party
>> is in deep trouble.
>>
>> It seems to be a frequent feature of conservative politics to suppress
>> the talented people who are seen as a threat to the leader. Then, when
>> it's time to select a new leader, there's nobody good left.
>
> Just conservative politics? Is there talent in Labour?

That's 'conservative' with a small 'c'. I don't think Peter was
referring to the party.

[occam]

I'm sorry to say, you are right. That cunt-grabbing prick will not need
any encouragement from others.

[Janet]

In article <e83f0871-5c9b-4baf-b88e-
5b7699...@googlegroups.com>, gram...@verizon.net
says...

>
> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 1:54:01 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> > On 20-Oct-22 14:53, occam wrote:
> > > On 20/10/2022 13:44, Janet wrote:
> > >> In article <tiql4f$1778$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, h...@b.ou
> > >> says...
>
> > >>> The King greeting Liz Truss:
> > >>> <https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2022/oct/13/back-again-dear-oh-dear-king-charles-holds-audience-with-liz-truss-video>
> > >>> HM: "Back again? ... Dear, oh dear."
> > >>> Says it all. Marvellous language, English.
> > >> Only, we don't tolerate public commentary on politics by
> > >> Monarchs. It could cost him his brand new job before it
> > >> even gets started.
> > >> Just like soon-to-be-ex PM Truss really. Her dimwitted
> > >> hubris risks bringing down her own institution.
> > > Soon to be?

It has happened, Janet.

It hadn't, at the time I posted.

Keep your ears to the ground for the
> > > final meeting between the feather-weight PM and the feather-brained king.
> >
> > Nope. She stays in office until a new loser is selected.
> >
> > P.S. There seems to be a significant amount of backing for...
> >
> > Boris Johnson.
>
> The BBC hasn't been able to get anyone to actually say so in public.

They certainly have. BBC radio 4 this am, interviewed a
number of conservative party members and Conservative MP's
all supporting his return.

Janet

[Peter Moylan]

On 21/10/22 20:02, occam wrote:
> On 21/10/2022 10:45, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 21/10/2022 à 04:22, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>>>
>>> When I look at possible replacements for her, it looks as if that
>>> party is in deep trouble.
>>>
>>> It seems to be a frequent feature of conservative politics to
>>> suppress the talented people who are seen as a threat to the
>>> leader. Then, when it's time to select a new leader, there's
>>> nobody good left.
>>
>> Just conservative politics? Is there talent in Labour?
>
> That's 'conservative' with a small 'c'. I don't think Peter was
> referring to the party.

Correct. To the best of my knowledge, UK Labour lost its
non-conservative credentials quite some time ago.

I'm not particularly picking on the UK here. There's hardly a left-wing
party of any consequence anywhere in the world.

Just the other day I was reflecting on the fact that Bob Menzies,
Australia's right-wing Prime Minister of the 1950s, stood well to the
left of the 2022 Australian Labor Party. His chances of being accepted
by the ALP today, if he were alive, are about the same as the chance of
Jesus Christ being accepted by any modern Christian church.

[Commander Kinsey]

But that was when we had a real PM.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 12:44:15 +0100, Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:

> In article <tiql4f$1778$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, h...@b.ou
> says...
>>
>> The King greeting Liz Truss:
>>
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2022/oct/13/back-again-dear-oh-dear-king-charles-holds-audience-with-liz-truss-video>
>>
>> HM: "Back again? ... Dear, oh dear."
>>
>> Says it all. Marvellous language, English.
>
> Only, we don't tolerate public commentary on politics by
> Monarchs. It could cost him his brand new job before it
> even gets started.

Kings aren't voted in or out.

> Just like soon-to-be-ex PM Truss really. Her dimwitted
> hubris risks bringing down her own institution.

Bring back Thatcher.

[Peter Moylan]

Does it matter? The impression I have, admittedly from a great distance,
is that the Conservatives are likely to lose the next election,
regardless of who they choose as leader. Since Boris seems to be the
main reason for their loss of popularity, it would be appropriate for
him to take the role of election loser.

(Boris's equivalent in Australia, Scott Morrison, led our Liberal Party
to defeat this year, and he is now so deep in the political wilderness
that the best he can hope for is to be forgotten by the time the
corruption investigations start.)

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 21.10.2022 kl. 11.36 skrev Peter Moylan:

> I'm not particularly picking on the UK here. There's hardly a left-wing
> party of any consequence anywhere in the world.

It's true in Denmark that there has been a marked swing to the right,
but "Enhedslisten" (Unity-list) is still a true left-wing party.

The name reflects the fact that many political groupings, each of them
too small to get any MP's, joined forces and stand to get 12 out of 179
seats (according to prognoses). They have 13 at present and that number
has been pretty stable for some years.

Copenhagen is governed by a elected group of 55. 15 of them are members
of Enhedslisten which is the largest party. The second largest (Social
Democrats =~ Labour) has 10.

--
Bertel

[Peter T. Daniels]

He certainly doesn't need to look at a second-class imitation of himself
(with a better vocabulary and possibly worse hair) for inspiration.

> comeback works for Boris, it may work for me too." (I know he has *no*
> talent whatsoever, but that does not seem to bother the American people.)

The one third of the registered republicans who vote in primary elections.
Certainly not "the American people."

After all, "the British people" chose Truss to be their PM.

[Peter T. Daniels]

This morning he's a distant third in the counting.

[occam]

On 21/10/2022 15:26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> The one third of the registered republicans who vote in primary elections.
> Certainly not "the American people."

46.8% of all American voters in the election of 2020 voted for him a
*second time around*. That may not contradict what you have said, but it
certainly is a truer depiction of reality than the delusion you are
under. (46.8% is larger than 'a third', just so as you know. By about a
third.)

>
> After all, "the British people" chose Truss to be their PM.

Wrong again. Just 200,000 members of the Conservative party were allowed
to vote, in what was a party-internal vote. The British people would not
make the stupid mistake a second time, let alone allow the situation to
progress to a third time.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:08:09 +0200, occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>On 21/10/2022 15:26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> The one third of the registered republicans who vote in primary elections.
>> Certainly not "the American people."
>
> 46.8% of all American voters in the election of 2020 voted for him a
>*second time around*. That may not contradict what you have said, but it
>certainly is a truer depiction of reality than the delusion you are
>under. (46.8% is larger than 'a third', just so as you know. By about a
>third.)
>

There are true facts and there are true facts that can mislead people.
In this case, you may be citing true facts, but they are misleading.
The registered Republicans who vote in primary elections don't
represent "American people"; they represent a smaller percentage of
the American people.

I don't know the source of your 46.8% figure (and I don't dispute it),
but keep in mind that Petey's comment was about registered Republicans
who vote in primary elections, and your figure seems to be about
registered voters who voted in the general election.

The primaries determine who the nominees will be, and the general
election determines who will be elected. (Ignoring the Electoral
College aspect) Not all voters in primaries vote in the general
election, and not all voters who voted in the primaries vote in the
general election. US voters are not required to vote for the member
of the party they are registered as a member of in the general
election.

Add to the above, registered voters of other parties can vote in
primaries for a Republican in some states. We have states with "open
primaries" and states with "closed primaries". Also, the 46.8%
includes votes from some Democrats, some Independents, and some NPAs.

>>
>> After all, "the British people" chose Truss to be their PM.
>
>Wrong again. Just 200,000 members of the Conservative party were allowed
>to vote, in what was a party-internal vote. The British people would not
>make the stupid mistake a second time, let alone allow the situation to
>progress to a third time.

This one's more complicated. Petey's oft-stated objection is that in
the UK the PM is not directly elected by "popular vote", and that's
the basis of his "British people" usage.

To me, that's a Pot/Kettle/Black situation because we live in a
country where gerrymandered districts abound, continue to have the
Electoral College make the final determination of the (Presidential)
election, and contine to allow laws that disinfranchise and severely
discourage free voting by all citizens of voting age.

But...there's two different systems, and neither one is the ideal.

[Quinn C]

* Peter Moylan:

In order to last, a leader has to see to that. Merkel was quite good at
it.

--
9/11 was pretty much the 9/11 of the falafel business.
-- Abed Nadir on Community

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-10-21 03:36, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 21/10/22 20:02, occam wrote:
>> On 21/10/2022 10:45, Hibou wrote:
>>> Le 21/10/2022 à 04:22, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> When I look at possible replacements for her, it looks as if that
>>>> party is in deep trouble.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to be a frequent feature of conservative politics to
>>>> suppress the talented people who are seen as a threat to the
>>>> leader. Then, when it's time to select a new leader, there's
>>>> nobody good left.
>>>
>>> Just conservative politics? Is there talent in Labour?
>>
>> That's 'conservative' with a small 'c'. I don't think Peter was
>> referring to the party.
>
> Correct. To the best of my knowledge, UK Labour lost its
> non-conservative credentials quite some time ago.
>
> I'm not particularly picking on the UK here. There's hardly a left-wing
> party of any consequence anywhere in the world.

I'm not sure what you mean by "of any consequence", and for that matter,
what you consider "left wing", but do you not consider Canadian Liberals
and US Democrats to be left wing?

What would you consider the rulers of China and Russia to be, wing-wise?

> Just the other day I was reflecting on the fact that Bob Menzies,
> Australia's right-wing Prime Minister of the 1950s, stood well to the
> left of the 2022 Australian Labor Party. His chances of being accepted
> by the ALP today, if he were alive, are about the same as the chance of
> Jesus Christ being accepted by any modern Christian church.


--

Q: What do you call a half-dozen Indians with Covid 19?
A: Six sick Sikhs (sic).

[Sam Plusnet]

On 21-Oct-22 10:50, Peter Moylan wrote:
of the possible return of Boris Johnson

>
> Does it matter? The impression I have, admittedly from a great distance,
> is that the Conservatives are likely to lose the next election,
> regardless of who they choose as leader. Since Boris seems to be the
> main reason for their loss of popularity, it would be appropriate for
> him to take the role of election loser.

Those figures are highly volatile.
Over Liz Truss' time in office the party's standing in polls plummeted
steeply yet so steadily that (it was claimed), had an election been
called at some point in that period, the Tories would have lost a
further 50 parliamentary seats for each week that passed.

Because the decline was so steep, we cannot rule out a big rebound - if
someone manages to display even a basic level of competence.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

If nothing else, he sees it as a "Get out of Jail Free" card.


--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

This point has been discussed ad nauseam here before. How astonishing
that PTD _still_ has completely failed to grasp how it works.

(OK, it isn't even the tiniest bit astonishing.)

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

On 21-Oct-22 9:45, Hibou wrote:
> Le 21/10/2022 à 04:22, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>>
>> When I look at possible replacements for her, it looks as if that party
>> is in deep trouble.
>>
>> It seems to be a frequent feature of conservative politics to suppress
>> the talented people who are seen as a threat to the leader. Then, when
>> it's time to select a new leader, there's nobody good left.
>
> Just conservative politics? Is there talent in Labour?

That lead me to try and see how many current Labour MPs have any
experience in government - ideally as a minister.
(The last Labour government ended in 2010)

It would be sensible to discount any MPs who are likely to stand down at
the next election - if this is known.

Simple google searches didn't offer an easy answer..


--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:08:14 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
> On 21/10/2022 15:26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > The one third of the registered republicans who vote in primary elections.
> > Certainly not "the American people."
>
> 46.8% of all American voters in the election of 2020 voted for him a
> *second time around*. That may not contradict what you have said, but it
> certainly is a truer depiction of reality than the delusion you are
> under. (46.8% is larger than 'a third', just so as you know. By about a
> third.)

Do you really not know the difference between a primary election
and a general election?

They have been discussed here ad nauseam.

You have probably not seen the weekly polls that are cited on the
Sunday morning shows. The steadily show that 45 has the support
of about 1/3 of registered republicans -- and that's who chooses
the candidate to be on the national ticket. The "base" is "motivated"

> > After all, "the British people" chose Truss to be their PM.
>
> Wrong again. Just 200,000 members of the Conservative party were allowed
> to vote, in what was a party-internal vote.

Trouble recognizing sarcasm?

Well! You've come around to recognizing my point! The Brit way
of choosing the Head of Government is indeed asinine.

> The British people would not
> make the stupid mistake a second time, let alone allow the situation to
> progress to a third time.

They've had three losers in a row now, with no say, and are about to
get the fourth, without a single chance to do anything about the pathetic
party that's been in power for 12 years.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:56:24 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Petey's

Screw you.

[Sam Plusnet]

It's never that simple.
They also need competent people heading the various departments, if they
want to stay in power.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter T. Daniels]

He knows EXACTLY how it works -- exactly as occam says. Or, do you
think occam's gotten something wrong?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 3:09:32 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 21-Oct-22 9:45, Hibou wrote:
> > Le 21/10/2022 à 04:22, Peter Moylan a écrit :

> >> When I look at possible replacements for her, it looks as if that party
> >> is in deep trouble.
> >> It seems to be a frequent feature of conservative politics to suppress
> >> the talented people who are seen as a threat to the leader. Then, when
> >> it's time to select a new leader, there's nobody good left.
> > Just conservative politics? Is there talent in Labour?
>
> That lead me to try and see how many current Labour MPs have any
> experience in government - ideally as a minister.
> (The last Labour government ended in 2010)

Bizarre usage. They've been in government since the first time they
were elected to office, or hired for a civil service position, or appointed
to some office.

They haven't been in The Government, but that's only because of the
peculiar use of the capital letter as the only distinction between
government service in general and what in AmE is called The Administration.

> It would be sensible to discount any MPs who are likely to stand down at
> the next election - if this is known.

"Stand down"? Is that something like retiring, choosing not to run again?

Since we _know_ when the next election is, incumbents can announce
a long time in advance that they won't seek reelection, giving those
interested in succeeding them plenty of time to make their interest
known, mount a campaign, etc. If an MP retires, do you have a great
void in their district and have to go scrambling for someone to try to
get elected?

[Quinn C]

* Sam Plusnet:

The distrust must run deep. One of the handful of British podcasters I
follow commented something along the lines of "I wouldn't put Liz Truss
in charge of the local railway enthusiasts' chapter, and here she is, in
charge of a whole country."

--
Dottie: Maybe you can give him a pep talk.
Tunde: He is a white man with money. God already gave him a pep talk.
-- Bob hearts Abishola, S01E10

[Paul Wolff]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, at 10:43:42, lar3ryca posted:

>On 2022-10-21 03:36, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 21/10/22 20:02, occam wrote:
>>> On 21/10/2022 10:45, Hibou wrote:

>>>> Le 21/10/2022 ą 04:22, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> When I look at possible replacements for her, it looks as if that
>>>>> party is in deep trouble.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to be a frequent feature of conservative politics to
>>>>> suppress the talented people who are seen as a threat to the
>>>>> leader. Then, when it's time to select a new leader, there's
>>>>> nobody good left.
>>>>
>>>> Just conservative politics? Is there talent in Labour?
>>>
>>> That's 'conservative' with a small 'c'. I don't think Peter was
>>> referring to the party.
>> Correct. To the best of my knowledge, UK Labour lost its
>> non-conservative credentials quite some time ago.
>> I'm not particularly picking on the UK here. There's hardly a
>>left-wing
>> party of any consequence anywhere in the world.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "of any consequence", and for that
>matter, what you consider "left wing", but do you not consider Canadian
>Liberals and US Democrats to be left wing?
>
>What would you consider the rulers of China and Russia to be, wing-wise?
>

Left- and right-wing are skunked terms, to be deprecated. Using
alternative language - and this /is/ an English usage group - they are
both fascist, the Chinese perhaps the more classically so.

I think I'll keep away from the Chinese consulate in Manchester for a
while longer. But if I should suddenly fall silent...
--
Paul

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 23:14:39 +0100, Paul Wolff
<boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>>What would you consider the rulers of China and Russia to be, wing-wise?
>>
>Left- and right-wing are skunked terms, to be deprecated.

To me, a "skunked" term is a term that is no longer acceptable to use
by responsible and considerate people but - at one time - were not
deprecated. The terms "cripple" and "spastic" are "skunked" terms.

I think you have reason to feel that "Left- and right-wing" *should*
be skunked, but responsible sources do still use the terms.

They *should* be skunked, not because they are offensive as "cripple"
and "spastic" are, but because they no longer have any real meaning.
They are now used to indicate people or parties that espouse some
program or programs that the user of the word disagrees with. That's
all it takes.

The two terms have almost been taken over by "the Marxist leftists"
and "the Radical right" even though the points of disagreement are
neither Marxist nor particularly radical.

Right on the heels of "left-wing" and "right-wing" are "liberal" and
"conservative" in being borderline skunk-worthy.

That's "liberal" with a lower-case "l" and "conservative" with a
lower-case "c" as used in the US.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 5:20:56 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 23:14:39 +0100, Paul Wolff
> <boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>What would you consider the rulers of China and Russia to be, wing-wise?
> >>
> >Left- and right-wing are skunked terms, to be deprecated.

> To me, a "skunked" term is a term that is no longer acceptable to use
> by responsible and considerate people but - at one time - were not
> deprecated. The terms "cripple" and "spastic" are "skunked" terms.

...

Bryan Garner coined "skunked" for terms that were changing in meaning
with the result that old-fashioned people would object to the new sense
and trendy people wouldn't understand the old sense. His example is
"hopefully". I think "beg the question" fits perfectly.

https://lawprose.org/garners-usage-tip-of-the-day-skunked-terms/

--
Jerry Friedman

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 22.10.2022 kl. 01.20 skrev Tony Cooper:

> To me, a "skunked" term is a term that is no longer acceptable to use
> by responsible and considerate people but - at one time - were not
> deprecated. The terms "cripple" and "spastic" are "skunked" terms.

Where does the word come from? I know the animal meaning of the word,
but that is hardly relevant. But I also know the Danish word "skunk"
which is the triangular room in a house with slanting roof that is cut
off at the sides by a vertical wall. It is used for long time (and
extremely long term) storage.

Has that got anything to do with the English word?

--
Bertel

[Tony Cooper]

The "World Wide Web" says:

The word skunk is dated from the 1630s, adapted from a southern New
England Algonquian language (probably Abenaki) seganku, from
Proto-Algonquian *šeka:kwa, from *šek- 'to urinate' + *-a:kw 'fo

It is considered to be a noxious animal in the US because when it is
attacked or anxious it sprays a secretion with a vile smell.

Skunks that have been altered to remove that ability are said to be
very nice pets, though.

[lar3ryca]

In addition to what Tony says, there are colloquial senses.

To skunk: v.
1. The animal
2. To shut out (prevent an opponent from scoring) in a sport.
3. To fail to pay

Skunky: adj. having a rancid smell or taste suggestive of a skunk.
Example; skunky beer

Skunked: Past tense of sense 2

Jerry gave a definition of "skunked" as it pertains to this discussion.

--
Blame Saint Andreas -- it's all his fault.

[Peter Moylan]

On 22/10/22 03:43, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-10-21 03:36, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> I'm not particularly picking on the UK here. There's hardly a
>> left-wing party of any consequence anywhere in the world.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "of any consequence", and for that
> matter, what you consider "left wing", but do you not consider
> Canadian Liberals and US Democrats to be left wing?

Definitely not. I'm not up to date on Canadian politics, but the US
Democrats are a good deal right of centre.

> What would you consider the rulers of China and Russia to be,
> wing-wise?

Autocrats. When you have leaders that power-hungry, the right-left
dimension becomes hard to judge. China still has a form of communism,
but the people at the top are just a bunch of yes-men. Russia has some
sort of a cross between plutocracy and dictatorship that is more hard
right than anything else, although with some socialist trimmings left
over from a previous form of government.

[occam]

On 21/10/2022 17:56, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:08:09 +0200, occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>
>> On 21/10/2022 15:26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> The one third of the registered republicans who vote in primary elections.
>>> Certainly not "the American people."
>>
>> 46.8% of all American voters in the election of 2020 voted for him a
>> *second time around*. That may not contradict what you have said, but it
>> certainly is a truer depiction of reality than the delusion you are
>> under. (46.8% is larger than 'a third', just so as you know. By about a
>> third.)
>>
>
> There are true facts and there are true facts that can mislead people.
> In this case, you may be citing true facts, but they are misleading.
> The registered Republicans who vote in primary elections don't
> represent "American people"; they represent a smaller percentage of
> the American people.

I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I give a fig about the
American electoral system. In your opinion, however: which is the figure
that reflects 'the American people' best - the 48.6% of voters at the
most recent election, or some primary elections leading up to it. (The
fact that the slimy tove Daniels mentions that statistic is because it
suits his purpose. It is irrelevant.)

>
> I don't know the source of your 46.8% figure (and I don't dispute it),
> but keep in mind that Petey's comment was about registered Republicans
> who vote in primary elections, and your figure seems to be about
> registered voters who voted in the general election.
>

<snip>

>

<more snip>

>>>
>>> After all, "the British people" chose Truss to be their PM.
>>
>> Wrong again. Just 200,000 members of the Conservative party were allowed
>> to vote, in what was a party-internal vote. The British people would not
>> make the stupid mistake a second time, let alone allow the situation to
>> progress to a third time.
>
> This one's more complicated. Petey's oft-stated objection is that in
> the UK the PM is not directly elected by "popular vote", and that's
> the basis of his "British people" usage.

Again, I apologise if I gave you the impression that I give a fig about
PTD's stated opinion, or any other of his posts. They are - more often
than not - non-sequiturs.

>
> To me, that's a Pot/Kettle/Black situation because we live in a
> country where gerrymandered districts abound, continue to have the
> Electoral College make the final determination of the (Presidential)
> election, and contine to allow laws that disinfranchise and severely
> discourage free voting by all citizens of voting age.
>
> But...there's two different systems, and neither one is the ideal.
>

<Amen to that>

[occam]

I think what you are saying is that "skunked" is a skunked term? Have I
got this right?

[CDB]

On 10/21/2022 3:17 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> occam wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>> The one third of the registered republicans who vote in primary
>>> elections. Certainly not "the American people."

>> 46.8% of all American voters in the election of 2020 voted for him
>> a *second time around*. That may not contradict what you have said,
>> but it certainly is a truer depiction of reality than the delusion
>> you are under. (46.8% is larger than 'a third', just so as you
>> know. By about a third.)

> Do you really not know the difference between a primary election and
> a general election?

> They have been discussed here ad nauseam.

> You have probably not seen the weekly polls that are cited on the
> Sunday morning shows. The steadily show that 45 has the support of
> about 1/3 of registered republicans -- and that's who chooses the
> candidate to be on the national ticket. The "base" is "motivated"

>>> After all, "the British people" chose Truss to be their PM.

>> Wrong again. Just 200,000 members of the Conservative party were
>> allowed to vote, in what was a party-internal vote.

> Trouble recognizing sarcasm?

> Well! You've come around to recognizing my point! The Brit way of
> choosing the Head of Government is indeed asinine.

It is very practical. The head of government is the person who can
obtain the agreement of a majority of Members on money votes.

>> The British people would not make the stupid mistake a second time,
>> let alone allow the situation to progress to a third time.

> They've had three losers in a row now, with no say, and are about to
> get the fourth, without a single chance to do anything about the
> pathetic party that's been in power for 12 years.

I miss Rey.

[CDB]

The skunk of changed usage has sprayed the word, and now no one will let
it inside.

There's a good cure for a literal skunking: a shampoo containing
hydrogen peroxide, baking soda, and a bit of detergent. When I had dogs
I always kept some in the house.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 4:40:50 AM UTC-6, occam wrote:
> On 22/10/2022 03:04, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 5:20:56 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 23:14:39 +0100, Paul Wolff
> >> <boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

...

> >>> Left- and right-wing are skunked terms, to be deprecated.
> >
> >> To me, a "skunked" term is a term that is no longer acceptable to use
> >> by responsible and considerate people but - at one time - were not
> >> deprecated. The terms "cripple" and "spastic" are "skunked" terms.
> > ...
> >
> > Bryan Garner coined "skunked" for terms that were changing in meaning
> > with the result that old-fashioned people would object to the new sense
> > and trendy people wouldn't understand the old sense. His example is
> > "hopefully". I think "beg the question" fits perfectly.
> >
> > https://lawprose.org/garners-usage-tip-of-the-day-skunked-terms/
> >
> I think what you are saying is that "skunked" is a skunked term? Have I
> got this right?

I agree with you fulsomely.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 12:36:33 +0200, occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>On 21/10/2022 17:56, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:08:09 +0200, occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/10/2022 15:26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> The one third of the registered republicans who vote in primary elections.
>>>> Certainly not "the American people."
>>>
>>> 46.8% of all American voters in the election of 2020 voted for him a
>>> *second time around*. That may not contradict what you have said, but it
>>> certainly is a truer depiction of reality than the delusion you are
>>> under. (46.8% is larger than 'a third', just so as you know. By about a
>>> third.)
>>>
>>
>> There are true facts and there are true facts that can mislead people.
>> In this case, you may be citing true facts, but they are misleading.
>> The registered Republicans who vote in primary elections don't
>> represent "American people"; they represent a smaller percentage of
>> the American people.
>
>I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I give a fig about the
>American electoral system. In your opinion, however: which is the figure
>that reflects 'the American people' best - the 48.6% of voters at the
>most recent election, or some primary elections leading up to it. (The
>fact that the slimy tove Daniels mentions that statistic is because it
>suits his purpose. It is irrelevant.)
>

It was never my assumption that you are interested in

>> I don't know the source of your 46.8% figure (and I don't dispute it),
>> but keep in mind that Petey's comment was about registered Republicans
>> who vote in primary elections, and your figure seems to be about
>> registered voters who voted in the general election.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>
><more snip>
>
>>>>
>>>> After all, "the British people" chose Truss to be their PM.
>>>
>>> Wrong again. Just 200,000 members of the Conservative party were allowed
>>> to vote, in what was a party-internal vote. The British people would not
>>> make the stupid mistake a second time, let alone allow the situation to
>>> progress to a third time.
>>
>> This one's more complicated. Petey's oft-stated objection is that in
>> the UK the PM is not directly elected by "popular vote", and that's
>> the basis of his "British people" usage.
>
>Again, I apologise if I gave you the impression that I give a fig about
>PTD's stated opinion, or any other of his posts. They are - more often
>than not - non-sequiturs.
>
>
>>
>> To me, that's a Pot/Kettle/Black situation because we live in a
>> country where gerrymandered districts abound, continue to have the
>> Electoral College make the final determination of the (Presidential)
>> election, and contine to allow laws that disinfranchise and severely
>> discourage free voting by all citizens of voting age.
>>
>> But...there's two different systems, and neither one is the ideal.
>>
> <Amen to that>

[Tony Cooper]

That may be the original meaning of the word, but is my definition
above not a currently used definition of the word? Another way of
saying a term is "politically incorrect"?

[Quinn C]

* CDB:

Really? Why?

Rey was deeper in my filter than almost anyone else, years before he
predictably targeted me. At that point I had him classified as such an
odious individual that the clumsy abuse directed at me didn't affect me
any more even when I saw it occasionally. But it should've still been a
red flag to others.

--
It doesn't matter that you've got that stupid accent, or that your
bits are different to my bits, because being a Derry Girl,
well, it's a fucking state of mind. And you're one of us.
-- Michelle to James, Derry Girls, series 2, episode 6

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 12:36:33 +0200, occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>On 21/10/2022 17:56, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:08:09 +0200, occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/10/2022 15:26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> The one third of the registered republicans who vote in primary elections.
>>>> Certainly not "the American people."
>>>
>>> 46.8% of all American voters in the election of 2020 voted for him a
>>> *second time around*. That may not contradict what you have said, but it
>>> certainly is a truer depiction of reality than the delusion you are
>>> under. (46.8% is larger than 'a third', just so as you know. By about a
>>> third.)
>>>
>>
>> There are true facts and there are true facts that can mislead people.
>> In this case, you may be citing true facts, but they are misleading.
>> The registered Republicans who vote in primary elections don't
>> represent "American people"; they represent a smaller percentage of
>> the American people.
>
>I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I give a fig about the
>American electoral system. In your opinion, however: which is the figure
>that reflects 'the American people' best - the 48.6% of voters at the
>most recent election, or some primary elections leading up to it. (The
>fact that the slimy tove Daniels mentions that statistic is because it
>suits his purpose. It is irrelevant.)
>

It was never my impression that you are a student of the American
political system. You chose to post a comment about the American
political system that indicated to me that you don't understand a
basic concept of a part of the system.

It's customary in this group when that happens for someone who does
have more understanding of the concept to provide corrective
information. I believe I did so in a polite and constructive way.

If you are not interested in additional information, that's fine with
me. Just ignore my post.

As to your question about what my opinion is, I can't provide one
because the question - as written - doesn't allow for an answer that
reflects the opinion of the "American people".

[Ken Blake]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 12:36:33 +0200, occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>On 21/10/2022 17:56, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:08:09 +0200, occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/10/2022 15:26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> The one third of the registered republicans who vote in primary elections.
>>>> Certainly not "the American people."
>>>
>>> 46.8% of all American voters in the election of 2020 voted for him a
>>> *second time around*. That may not contradict what you have said, but it
>>> certainly is a truer depiction of reality than the delusion you are
>>> under. (46.8% is larger than 'a third', just so as you know. By about a
>>> third.)
>>>
>>
>> There are true facts and there are true facts that can mislead people.
>> In this case, you may be citing true facts, but they are misleading.
>> The registered Republicans who vote in primary elections don't
>> represent "American people"; they represent a smaller percentage of
>> the American people.
>
>I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I give a fig about the
>American electoral system. In your opinion, however: which is the figure
>that reflects 'the American people' best - the 48.6% of voters at the
>most recent election, or some primary elections leading up to it. (The
>fact that the slimy tove Daniels mentions that statistic is because it
>suits his purpose. It is irrelevant.)

And here I thought he was a slithy tove.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:49:14 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:

>On 21-Oct-22 10:50, Peter Moylan wrote:
>of the possible return of Boris Johnson
>>
>> Does it matter? The impression I have, admittedly from a great distance,
>> is that the Conservatives are likely to lose the next election,
>> regardless of who they choose as leader. Since Boris seems to be the
>> main reason for their loss of popularity, it would be appropriate for
>> him to take the role of election loser.
>
>Those figures are highly volatile.
>Over Liz Truss' time in office the party's standing in polls plummeted
>steeply yet so steadily that (it was claimed), had an election been
>called at some point in that period, the Tories would have lost a
>further 50 parliamentary seats for each week that passed.
>
>Because the decline was so steep, we cannot rule out a big rebound - if
>someone manages to display even a basic level of competence.

A current political cartoon that made me laugh:

https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/59934a1/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F0f%2Fbf%2Fcd7ac363464590599e7cd9063ee0%2F11-deadder-washington-post.jpg

[Peter T. Daniels]

Mazal tov! You did it to someone else -- failing (deliberately?)
to understand the question, and giving a dictionary definition
of its original sense and not of the sense in question.

Fortunately, Jerry provided the _relevant_ answer.

> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

"You overestimate my ability to understand what I'm looking at."
-- Tony Cooper, 10/08/2022

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 2:26:12 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 22/10/22 03:43, lar3ryca wrote:
> > On 2022-10-21 03:36, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> >> I'm not particularly picking on the UK here. There's hardly a
> >> left-wing party of any consequence anywhere in the world.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "of any consequence", and for that
> > matter, what you consider "left wing", but do you not consider
> > Canadian Liberals and US Democrats to be left wing?
>
> Definitely not. I'm not up to date on Canadian politics, but the US
> Democrats are a good deal right of centre.

All of them? Have you heard of AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)?
She somehow ousted one of the most senior NYC congressmen
in the Democratic primary in 2018 and is the leader of "The Squad,"
a Gang of Four (non-white, which must particularly rankle the rwnc's)
women, Class of 2018, who embrace slogans like "Defund the Police"
that may have played a significant part in the near-loss of the House
to republicans in 2020.

Nancy Pelosi is constantly faced with attacks claiming that all
Democrats embrace their radical agenda, and it makes it hard
for electable Democrats to get elected in "purple states."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 6:36:40 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:

> Again, I apologise if I gave you the impression that I give a fig about
> PTD's stated opinion, or any other of his posts. They are - more often
> than not - non-sequiturs.

I'll _try_ to put the "sequences" in more explicitly, so that maybe even
you can follow.

Do not, however, look to T*ny C**p*r for any "clarification" of what
I write.

[lar3ryca]

That's only one of the ways it can be skunked, IMO.
Example: Gay. It is still, apparently, politically correct to call a
male homosexual gay, but because gay has another meaning, I (and others
on this newsgroup, in the past) consider it skunked.

The same, apparently fits the word queer. PC, but skunked because of the
other meaning.

--
Zenophobia: the irrational fear of convergent sequences.

[Peter T. Daniels]

(Is that all that matters?)

Yet it took them 44 days to realize that that was impossible.

If she and the other candidates had had to make the case for their
policies -- borrow hugely to put more money in wealthy pockets --
in a proper electoral campaign, maybe this latest world-wide
embarrassment, and economic disaster, would not have happened.

> >> The British people would not make the stupid mistake a second time,
> >> let alone allow the situation to progress to a third time.
>
> > They've had three losers in a row now, with no say, and are about to
> > get the fourth, without a single chance to do anything about the
> > pathetic party that's been in power for 12 years.
>
> I miss Rey.

Why?

[Peter Moylan]

On 22/10/22 00:26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> After all, "the British people" chose Truss to be their PM.

The British people chose the ruling party. That's what matters in their
system (and ours). It's the party that sets policy, not a king or president.

[Peter Moylan]

A skunked term is skunked because it stinks. Both of the above
categories are covered by that definition.

[David Kleinecke]

I am surprised at this new meaning of the verb "skunk". When I learned
the word in my youth it mean "defeated heavily" as in "Team A skunked
team B". It seems as though nobody else has this usage.

[lar3ryca]

That's always been one of the meanings. Many people know and use this
meaning. I mentioned it in this thread earlier today.

--
I went to a restaurant that serves “breakfast at any time”.
So I ordered French Toast during the Renaissance.

[Mark Brader]

Jerry Friedman:

>>> Bryan Garner coined "skunked" for terms that were changing in
>>> meaning with the result that old-fashioned people would object to the
>>> new sense and trendy people wouldn't understand the old sense. His
>>> example is "hopefully". I think "beg the question" fits perfectly.

David Kleinecke:

> I am surprised at this new meaning of the verb "skunk".

I'm surprised at that; it's definitely come up here before.

> When I learned the word in my youth it mean "defeated heavily"
> as in "Team A skunked team B". It seems as though nobody else has
> this usage.

I know it in cribbage, with the specific meaning that the loser
scored 90 points or less. This counts equivalently to two wins
(not that I play cribbage for money).
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Yes, you're very smart. Shut up."
m...@vex.net --The Princess Bride

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[bil...@shaw.ca]

Our cats always knew to give the local skunks the right of way. Some time
in late summer-early fall, you can smell the skunk in the air. It's when the
kits are getting their first weapons practice. Our cats were allowed
to go out, but none of them ever took a direct hit.

bill

[bil...@shaw.ca]

Do you like Kipling?

bill

[bil...@shaw.ca]

I'm familiar with both those meanings for skunk. The "defeat" meaning lives
on, in cribbage especially. Another current meaning is what happens to
beer, especially home-made beer that tastes "off", i.e. "skunked." In sports
talk, I rarely hear it nowadays in sports play-by-play or reportage.

bill

[occam]

He makes exceedingly good cakes, for sure.

[occam]

On 23/10/2022 08:59, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:

>
> Our cats always knew to give the local skunks the right of way. Some time
> in late summer-early fall,

"summer-early" caught my attention

...you can smell the skunk in the air.

Ah, that is the smell surrounding the UK Conservative party, just about
this time. We await the appearance of the blonde skunk.

[Silvano]

bil...@shaw.ca hat am 23.10.2022 um 09:31 geschrieben:

> I'm familiar with both those meanings for skunk. The "defeat" meaning lives
> on, in cribbage especially.

In which parts of the English-speaking world is cribbage popular? I
thought it's widespread in Great Britain only, but your Canadian address
makes me think that I must be wrong.

[Hibou]

Le 22/10/2022 à 14:11, CDB a écrit :
> On 10/21/2022 3:17 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> Well! You've come around to recognizing my point! The Brit way of
>> choosing the Head of Government is indeed asinine.
>
> It is very practical.  The head of government is the person who can

> obtain the agreement of a majority of Members on money votes. [...]

Yes, it does avoid having a head of government of one colour and a
parliament of another - at least when the largest party has an outright
majority.

On the other hand, I quite enjoyed the Coalition. Coalitions are a
useful way of tempering the major parties' excesses.

[CDB]

On 10/22/2022 11:20 AM, Quinn C wrote:
> CDB:

>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> occam wrote:

>>>> The British people would not make the stupid mistake a second
>>>> time, let alone allow the situation to progress to a third
>>>> time.

>>> They've had three losers in a row now, with no say, and are about
>>> to get the fourth, without a single chance to do anything about
>>> the pathetic party that's been in power for 12 years.

>> I miss Rey.

> Really? Why?

> Rey was deeper in my filter than almost anyone else, years before he
> predictably targeted me. At that point I had him classified as such
> an odious individual that the clumsy abuse directed at me didn't
> affect me any more even when I saw it occasionally. But it should've
> still been a red flag to others.

He gave the rough side of his tongue to people he thought deserved it.
When he hadn't been bored into repetitiousness his posts were
interesting. As I said both to him and to PeterTD, and as I now say to
you, his frank abuse provided a kind of safety-valve for my annoyance,
and perhaps for that of others, at the more annoying aspects of his
targets' self-presentation.

It is possible that my attitude would have been different if he had
taken after me as he eventually did after you, but I don't think so. I
would first have asked myself if I had deserved the shoeing.

[CDB]

On 10/22/2022 3:34 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

It's the make-or-break question.

> Yet it took them 44 days to realize that that was impossible.

> If she and the other candidates had had to make the case for their
> policies -- borrow hugely to put more money in wealthy pockets -- in
> a proper electoral campaign, maybe this latest world-wide
> embarrassment, and economic disaster, would not have happened.

Heu vulgus mobilius quam sapiens. They voted for brexit, and that is
where Britain's current troubles started.

>>>> The British people would not make the stupid mistake a second
>>>> time, let alone allow the situation to progress to a third
>>>> time.

>>> They've had three losers in a row now, with no say, and are about
>>> to get the fourth, without a single chance to do anything about
>>> the pathetic party that's been in power for 12 years.

>> I miss Rey.

> Why?

See previous answer.

[CDB]

On 10/23/2022 1:23 AM, David Kleinecke wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Jerry Friedman wrote:

>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> Paul Wolff <boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>>>>>> What would you consider the rulers of China and Russia to
>>>>>> be, wing-wise?

>>>>> Left- and right-wing are skunked terms, to be deprecated.

>>>> To me, a "skunked" term is a term that is no longer acceptable
>>>> to use by responsible and considerate people but - at one time
>>>> - were not deprecated. The terms "cripple" and "spastic" are
>>>> "skunked" terms.
>>> ...

>>> Bryan Garner coined "skunked" for terms that were changing in
>>> meaning with the result that old-fashioned people would object to
>>> the new sense and trendy people wouldn't understand the old
>>> sense. His example is "hopefully". I think "beg the question"
>>> fits perfectly.

>>> https://lawprose.org/garners-usage-tip-of-the-day-skunked-terms/
>> A skunked term is skunked because it stinks. Both of the above
>> categories are covered by that definition.

> I am surprised at this new meaning of the verb "skunk". When I
> learned the word in my youth it mean "defeated heavily" as in "Team A
> skunked team B". It seems as though nobody else has this usage.

Nobody loves you when you're down and out.

[CDB]

On 10/23/2022 2:59 AM, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:

I used to notice that smell too, but now I'm never sure it isn't just a
neighbour walking past, doing something perfectly lawful.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 6:53:29 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 22/10/22 00:26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > After all, "the British people" chose Truss to be their PM.
> The British people chose the ruling party. That's what matters in their
> system (and ours). It's the party that sets policy, not a king or president.

And that's why our Executive and Legislature are separate. President
Truss could have proposed all the tax cuts and added borrowing she
wanted, and Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi could have simply
not brought them to the floor at all. Or if a vote was needed, to embarrass
the supporters, it would have been defeated.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Skunk-at-a-distance is a not-unpleasant odor. After all, it's used
in perfumes.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 9:15:01 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:

> He gave the rough side of his tongue to people he thought deserved it.
> When he hadn't been bored into repetitiousness his posts were
> interesting. As I said both to him and to PeterTD, and as I now say to
> you, his frank abuse provided a kind of safety-valve for my annoyance,
> and perhaps for that of others, at the more annoying aspects of his
> targets' self-presentation.

Itw was his constant fabrications that were even more disgusting than
his antisemitism, homophobia, and misogyny.

> It is possible that my attitude would have been different if he had
> taken after me as he eventually did after you, but I don't think so. I
> would first have asked myself if I had deserved the shoeing.

You wouldn't have.

("Shoeing"??)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 9:21:43 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> On 10/22/2022 3:34 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > CDB wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> occam wrote:
> >>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >>>>> After all, "the British people" chose Truss to be their PM.
> >>>> Wrong again. Just 200,000 members of the Conservative party
> >>>> were allowed to vote, in what was a party-internal vote.
> >>> Trouble recognizing sarcasm? Well! You've come around to
> >>> recognizing my point! The Brit way of choosing the Head of
> >>> Government is indeed asinine.
> >> It is very practical. The head of government is the person who can
> >> obtain the agreement of a majority of Members on money votes.
> > (Is that all that matters?)
>
> It's the make-or-break question.

Oh, that's right. Up There you don't have to worry about things
like institutionalized racism.

[bruce bowser]

On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 7:44:21 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> In article <tiql4f$1778$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, h...@b.ou
> says...
> >
> > The King greeting Liz Truss:
> >
> > <https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2022/oct/13/back-again-dear-oh-dear-king-charles-holds-audience-with-liz-truss-video>
> >
> > HM: "Back again? ... Dear, oh dear."
> >
> > Says it all. Marvellous language, English.
> Only, we don't tolerate public commentary on politics by
> Monarchs. It could cost him his brand new job before it
> even gets started.
>
> Just like soon-to-be-ex PM Truss really. Her dimwitted
> hubris risks bringing down her own institution.

Thus helping Putins?

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Especially if team B didn't score, as Larry said.

> I'm familiar with both those meanings for skunk. The "defeat" meaning lives
> on, in cribbage especially.

Well, among cribbage players. The official term is "lurched", right?

When I Google "I got skunked" the most common result is about being sprayed
by a a skunk. Next is hunters not killing anything and anglers not catching
anything (with one birder not seeing any of some species). I looked at three
pages without seeing cribbage.

> Another current meaning is what happens to
> beer, especially home-made beer that tastes "off", i.e. "skunked."

I've heard "skank", which I think is a jocular past tense.

> In sports
> talk, I rarely hear it nowadays in sports play-by-play or reportage.

Waste of good slang.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Quinn C]

* CDB:

> On 10/22/2022 11:20 AM, Quinn C wrote:
>> CDB:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> occam wrote:
>
>>>>> The British people would not make the stupid mistake a second
>>>>> time, let alone allow the situation to progress to a third
>>>>> time.
>
>>>> They've had three losers in a row now, with no say, and are about
>>>> to get the fourth, without a single chance to do anything about
>>>> the pathetic party that's been in power for 12 years.
>
>>> I miss Rey.
>
>> Really? Why?
>
>> Rey was deeper in my filter than almost anyone else, years before he
>> predictably targeted me. At that point I had him classified as such
>> an odious individual that the clumsy abuse directed at me didn't
>> affect me any more even when I saw it occasionally. But it should've
>> still been a red flag to others.
>
> He gave the rough side of his tongue to people he thought deserved it.
> When he hadn't been bored into repetitiousness his posts were
> interesting.

Hitler did some good things, too. Not to say that Rey was on a remotely
similar level of evilness, but pointing out the silliness of this
pattern of argumentation.

> As I said both to him and to PeterTD, and as I now say to
> you, his frank abuse provided a kind of safety-valve for my annoyance,
> and perhaps for that of others, at the more annoying aspects of his
> targets' self-presentation.
>
> It is possible that my attitude would have been different if he had
> taken after me as he eventually did after you, but I don't think so. I
> would first have asked myself if I had deserved the shoeing.

He was severely disqualified by using racist, anti-semitic and similar
invective. It doesn't matter if identity is the reason for being
targeted, if you single that out as the point to attach your abuse to,
you're being racist, anti-semitic etc.

Part of why his abuse of me didn't do much was because it was based on
his deep misunderstanding of being trans as some kind of sexual fetish.
Besides being a transphobic stereotype, that missed what it means in my
case by a barn door.

It's rather noble of you to think you might be motivated to
self-reflection by someone of such poor self-awareness himself.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

[Tony Cooper]

I wouldn't say that cribbage is popular in the US, but many people do
play it, and stores that sell things like chess and checker sets do
stock cribbage boards.

I play cribbage once a day, but an online version.
https://cribbageclassic.com/

We have several cribbage boards at home, and my wife and I play every
so often. I tried to interest my grandsons, but to no avail. They
will play, but it's obvious that it doesn't capture their interest and
they are just humoring me.

A much more popular game is dominoes. It's very popular in Florida in
African-American and Cuban neighborhoods. Drive through a A-A
neighborhood on a nice day and you'll see several groups of men
playing dominoes.

In Miami's "Little Havana" neighborhood, there's a large, covered area
called "Domino Park" where you'll see at least 25 or 30 tables of
people playing dominoes. This is one group I saw there:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports-and-Games/i-4drfKSw/0/4320e634/XL/2010-10-15-39-XL.jpg

It's also something you'll see in public parks. This was taken in a
park in Jacksonville FL:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports-and-Games/i-VgssR8K/0/77324672/XL/2013-11-20-103b-XL.jpg

While cribbage can be played by up to four players at a time, it's
normally a game between two players at a time. Dominoes can be played
with multiple players at the same time.



--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

[Tony Cooper]

The boards I have, and the board in the online version I play, use
"Skunk".

I think "lurched" is a skunked term for cribbage players.

>
>When I Google "I got skunked" the most common result is about being sprayed
>by a a skunk. Next is hunters not killing anything and anglers not catching
>anything (with one birder not seeing any of some species). I looked at three
>pages without seeing cribbage.
>
>> Another current meaning is what happens to
>> beer, especially home-made beer that tastes "off", i.e. "skunked."
>
>I've heard "skank", which I think is a jocular past tense.
>
>> In sports
>> talk, I rarely hear it nowadays in sports play-by-play or reportage.
>
>Waste of good slang.
--

[Jerry Friedman]

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 8:58:58 AM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 18:04:40 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 5:20:56 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 23:14:39 +0100, Paul Wolff
> >> <boun...@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

...

> >> >Left- and right-wing are skunked terms, to be deprecated.
> >
> >> To me, a "skunked" term is a term that is no longer acceptable to use
> >> by responsible and considerate people but - at one time - were not
> >> deprecated. The terms "cripple" and "spastic" are "skunked" terms.
> >...
> >
> >Bryan Garner coined "skunked" for terms that were changing in meaning
> >with the result that old-fashioned people would object to the new sense
> >and trendy people wouldn't understand the old sense. His example is
> >"hopefully". I think "beg the question" fits perfectly.
> >
> >https://lawprose.org/garners-usage-tip-of-the-day-skunked-terms/

> That may be the original meaning of the word, but is my definition
> above not a currently used definition of the word?

Yes, by a few people, but those few may be more than use it with the original
definition.

> Another way of saying a term is "politically incorrect"?

Which might suggest a different stance.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 11:15:29 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> Hitler did some good things, too. Not to say that Rey was on a remotely
> similar level of evilness, but pointing out the silliness of this
> pattern of argumentation.

He was on the identical scale of evilness. He claimed he was never a
Hitler Jugend, but I happened to be trying to read Shirer's *Rise and
Fall of the Third Reich* (after the last time he made that claim), from
which I learned that all children, before they were old enough to join
Hitler Jugend, were in a sort of Cub Scout version of indoctrination.
He was 9 when VE-Day happened -- but he did not emigrate to the US
until the age of 23, so never experienced the denazification process
that might have helped him become somewhat normal.

[Mark Brader]

William Boei:

>> I'm familiar with both those meanings for skunk. The "defeat" meaning lives
>> on, in cribbage especially.

Jerry Friedman:

> Well, among cribbage players. The official term is "lurched", right?

I have seen rules that show that as an alternate term, but the official
American Cribbage Congress rules have only "skunk". (The UK Cribbage
Association is only a few years old and doesn't seem to have produced
any official rules.)
--
Mark Brader | "The net exists to be used. It is a powerful tool
m...@vex.net | and as long as people treat it as a tool and not a toy
Toronto | it will prosper." --Jerry Schwarz on Usenet, 1982

[Tony Cooper]

When I first joined a.u.e., Rey said some kind things about my
contributions. Sometime later I made some less-than-complimentary
comments about the design of his "Maledicta" website, and Rey went
into full attack mode on me.

He initiated the use of asterisks in place of vowels in my name in his
attack posts, and said some rather nasty things.

My attitude about Rey never changed, though. Like the little girl in
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem, when he was good he was very, very
good, and when he was bad he was horrid.

One on the most incongruous things about a.u.e. today the way PTD
reviles Rey, yet PTD is the reincarnation of Rey in the group. The
most frequent wielder of "verbal aggression" today is Petey. He apes
Rey in asterisk replacement, the use of denigrating terms for those he
dislikes, and the use of crudity and profanity.

Like Rey, when he's good he's very, very good. When he sticks to
subjects he's qualified to comment on - music, linguistics, TBBT, show
biz - he's knowlegeable and interesting. But, like Rey, he can't
abide anyone who disagrees with him and becomes horrid.

I do give credit to Petey for his innovative use of "stooge" as a
conspiracy of opposition and his baseless claims of "snippets"
misrepresenting his comments. He's brought the "big lie" to a.u.e.
and works it well.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> One on the most incongruous things about a.u.e. today the way PTD
> reviles Rey, yet PTD is the reincarnation of Rey in the group. The

Bullshit,

> most frequent wielder of "verbal aggression" today is Petey. He apes
> Rey in asterisk replacement, the use of denigrating terms for those he
> dislikes, and the use of crudity and profanity.

PTD does not invent lies about you.

It's fascinating that TC, who is unable to recognize his own internalized
homophobia (or is there a more general term to incorporate transphobia),
also fails to recognize it (and antisemitism and misogyny) in his idol the
dead sociopath -- since the only thing he deems worth remembering is
some naughty words.
--
"You overestimate my ability to understand what I'm looking at."
-- Tony Cooper, 10/08/2022

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 23.10.2022 kl. 17.16 skrev Tony Cooper:

> It's also something you'll see in public parks. This was taken in a
> park in Jacksonville FL:

> https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports-and-Games/i-VgssR8K/0/77324672/XL/2013-11-20-103b-XL.jpg

It's a wonderful expression you have caught on the central guy.

--
Bertel

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> One on the most incongruous things about a.u.e. today the way PTD
>> reviles Rey, yet PTD is the reincarnation of Rey in the group. The
>
>Bullshit,
>
>> most frequent wielder of "verbal aggression" today is Petey. He apes
>> Rey in asterisk replacement, the use of denigrating terms for those he
>> dislikes, and the use of crudity and profanity.
>
>PTD does not invent lies about you.
>
>It's fascinating that TC, who is unable to recognize his own internalized
>homophobia (or is there a more general term to incorporate transphobia),
>also fails to recognize it (and antisemitism and misogyny) in his idol the
>dead sociopath -- since the only thing he deems worth remembering is
>some naughty words.

--

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 12:05:57 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> One on the most incongruous things about a.u.e. today the way PTD
>> reviles Rey, yet PTD is the reincarnation of Rey in the group. The
>
>Bullshit,
>
>> most frequent wielder of "verbal aggression" today is Petey. He apes
>> Rey in asterisk replacement, the use of denigrating terms for those he
>> dislikes, and the use of crudity and profanity.
>
>PTD does not invent lies about you.

Nor I about you.

>
>It's fascinating that TC, who is unable to recognize his own internalized
>homophobia (or is there a more general term to incorporate transphobia),
>also fails to recognize it (and antisemitism and misogyny) in his idol the
>dead sociopath -- since the only thing he deems worth remembering is
>some naughty words.

No, Petey, you don't get to get away with this. Our contentious
relationship has nothing to do with homophobia, and you know it. Our
exchanges were contentious long before you revealed that side of you.

What you are attempting is a recognized diversion where a person would
like to believe that the reason for the other person's dislike is
based on some factor like homosexuality, race, or religion rather than
the fact that the dislike is based simply on the person as that person
presents himself. It's you as you appear in this group, and nothing
to do with any other aspects of your life.

[David Kleinecke]

Providence provides:
In the local news this AM: Skunk Train Skunked.
The Skunk Train runs from Willits to Fort Bragg in California. It is
privately owned business. Meanwhile the old railroad (I forget
its name) from Willets north to Eureka 178 miles away is finally
after all these years being reconstructed as the Great Redwood
Trail. The Skunk Train tried to buy a piece of old right-of-way and
defeat the trail. The authorities denied them the purchase and
the Skunk Train was properly skunked.

I wont live to walk the trail but it will be a dooser.

[Tony Cooper]

On the subject of games and scores....

I used to be an avid gin (rummy) player, but I've either moved away
from the people I played with or they are now deceased.

We played a version where three columns of score were recorded. The
points obtained in the first game counted in column one, the points
recorded in the second game counted in column one and two, and the
points recorded in the third game - and all subsequent games - counted
in columns one, two, and three as long as the total in a column was
less than the winning total. That was 125 points in our rules.

In that style, it was possible to "go out" (a total score of 125 or
more) in one, two, or three columns before the opponent scored any
points.

When that was accomplished, we said we had "schneider" in that/those
column(s).

Surprisingly, that term is in M-W dictionary, and said to be from the
German "to tailor" or to "cut".

[Paul Wolff]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022, at 08:56:41, Peter T. Daniels posted:

>On Sunday, October 23, 2022 at 11:15:29 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>
>> Hitler did some good things, too. Not to say that Rey was on a remotely
>> similar level of evilness, but pointing out the silliness of this
>> pattern of argumentation.
>

Writing of Rey vs Hitler:

>He was on the identical scale of evilness.

What an absurd claim. Let's take just one measure. How many murders did
Hitler order? How many did Rey order? Identically evil, or not?

>He claimed he was never a
>Hitler Jugend, but I happened to be trying to read Shirer's *Rise and
>Fall of the Third Reich* (after the last time he made that claim), from
>which I learned that all children, before they were old enough to join
>Hitler Jugend, were in a sort of Cub Scout version of indoctrination.

That's a very broad-brush approach. All sorts of things happened. A
Jewish boy was quietly enrolled into the local Hitler Youth because they
needed him in their football team, for one example.

>
>He was 9 when VE-Day happened -- but he did not emigrate to the US
>until the age of 23, so never experienced the denazification process
>that might have helped him become somewhat normal.

As I understood it from reports I was given later, the denazification
process (to the extent it was applied) was aimed at keeping former Nazis
out of powerful positions in post-war Germany, not about brainwashing
(sorry, "re-educating") all of them. Neither approach worked very well.
--
Paul

[Paul Wolff]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022, at 16:47:23, Tony Cooper posted:

>
>On the subject of games and scores....
>
>I used to be an avid gin (rummy) player, but I've either moved away
>from the people I played with or they are now deceased.
>
>We played a version where three columns of score were recorded. The
>points obtained in the first game counted in column one, the points
>recorded in the second game counted in column one and two, and the
>points recorded in the third game - and all subsequent games - counted
>in columns one, two, and three as long as the total in a column was
>less than the winning total. That was 125 points in our rules.
>
>In that style, it was possible to "go out" (a total score of 125 or
>more) in one, two, or three columns before the opponent scored any
>points.
>
>When that was accomplished, we said we had "schneider" in that/those
>column(s).
>
>Surprisingly, that term is in M-W dictionary, and said to be from the
>German "to tailor" or to "cut".
>

Schneider is a German card game - though excuse me if I'm
mis-remembering something from a very long time ago, when my father
tried to teach his small son to play a game with that name.
--
Paul

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 11:08:14 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:

>> On 21/10/2022 15:26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> After all, "the British people" chose Truss to be their PM.
>>
>> Wrong again. Just 200,000 members of the Conservative party were allowed
>> to vote, in what was a party-internal vote.
>
> Trouble recognizing sarcasm?
>
> Well! You've come around to recognizing my point! The Brit way
> of choosing the Head of Government is indeed asinine.

When will you understand that the executive powers of a PM *thankfully*
are much less than those of a US president, so there's no point in
popularly electing them?

The various ministers and the MPs need a cat herder.

--
It's a strange sensation, dying. No matter how many times it happens
to you, you never get used to it.
-- Ezri Dax, ST DS9, S07E03

[Quinn C]

* Paul Wolff:

I don't know it as the name of a game, but in Skat - a popular German
card game - "Schneider" indicates a low score of the losing party, which
gives extra points to the winning one. It can also be declared
beforehand for additional points. "Schwarz" (black) is a further step
down, having won 0 tricks.

--
It was frequently the fastest way to find what he was looking
for, provided that he was looking for trouble.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen

[Tony Cooper]

I don't understand Petey's statement. Where does Petey think this
"denazification" would have taken place?

If in Germany, and Rey was in Germany to age 23, he experienced the
process if it was practiced where he lived and if he was considered to
be a candidate. Most of the process, though, that wasn't directed at
former Nazi soldiers and officials, was the removal of propaganda
material, symbols, and even the street names.

This site: https://www.alliiertenmuseum.de/en/thema/denazification/
give more information on the process.

I don't find any organization ("Cub Scout version") for German youth
during that period for boys or girls too young to join Deutsches
Jungvolk (boys 10 to 14) or Jungmädelbund (girls 10 to 14), but it is
reasonable to assume that younger boys and girls would be greatly
influenced by their older siblings or friends and indoctrinated in
this way. It's also reasonable to assume that some teachers of the
lower grades would provide some indoctrination. And, of course, some
parents.