On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 10:13:02 +1100, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2016-Jan-04 09:40, Mr. B1ack wrote:
Oh ... you seem well informed ... there's a Britishism
that eludes me - saying somebody is "in hospital" rather
than "in the hospital" or "in a hospital". Americans DO
say "in prison" however ...
Also "in college", "at home", and many other examples. This has been >>discussed numerous times in this newsgroup, so it's probably in the AUE >>FAQ. In non-American English, "in hospital" means that the person is a >>patient, while "in the hospital" means at some specific hospital, not >>necessarily as a patient. "Dr X is not in the hospital right now. Have
you tried phoning his practice?"
To discriminate between a patient and somebody
who just happens to be within a hospital we say "IN
the hospital" for a patient and "AT the hospital"
for non-patients.
"Mr. Jones is in the hospital".
"Mrs Jones is visiting her husband at the hospital".
Anyone "in" is presumed to be ill. There's a slight
problem with all this if Mr. Jones is a hospital
administrator or functionary and Mrs. Jones has
stopped by to discuss the party they're having
that weekend ...... you need personal knowledge
of Mr. Jones to decode the sentences.
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:44:47 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:21:12 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:56:05 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
[bandwidth snip]
Iran no matter HOW much he'd like it to happen.
There are no "pure democracies" in the world. Even
the classical Athenian experiment with that didn't
last very long. Plato was correct when he called
democracy a "degenerate system" - it's is a very
bad idea to give the uninformed rabble direct
and detailed control.
What a stupid viewpoint.
No, it's the intellegent - and realistic - viewpoint.
You're basically saying "don't let other peoples' votes count
because they aren't as clever as me". Nobody has the right
to say that.
Our Founders said it ... and I think they were correct,
at least as far as electing presidents go. "Mob logic"
can be a terrible thing - and you don't want it when
deciding, or electing someone who can decide, to
push the big red button.
It's not always an issue of "smartness" either, it's
an issue of crowd behavior. There was a line in a
movie some years back ... "A person is smart ;
PEOPLE are dumb panicky dangerous animals".
We may not LIKE to believe this but it's always been
true (and exploited). Certain safeguards are necessary
and the more money, power and tangible force involved
in the equation the stronger the safeguards must be.
There are some kinds of people who should never be
allowed to become a US president even if 99.99% of
the voters absolutely LOVE the guy. "Democracy" ?
Nice idea in the abstract, but there are times to be
coldly practical.
The world has endured meglomaniacs, psychotics,
sociopaths and outright lunatics elevated to positions
of great power far too often. It was a very bad thing
pre-industrial and these days is a literal world-ending
threat.
But who gets to decide which people say who is a psychotic?
It's all about your point of view.
The ONLY fair way is to allow EVERYONE to vote evenly.
What you think is mad someone else may think is sensible.
If more people think a particular thing is sensible than mad,
then it should be deemed sensible.
Our respective "representative" systems are intended
to alleviate the potential problems of "pure" democracy ...
but I think they introduce new routes of abuse/corruption.
Also, since the invention of the instant opinion poll,
representative systems tend to manifest some of the
problems of "pure" democracy as politicians try to please
all the people all of the time.
Who has the right to say the majority of the population
isn't clever enough to vote ?
In our case it was the Founders themselves. They
were very clever men ... and I think honest about
their citizens and wise about human nature. The
more power vested in an individual, the more layers
of insulation required between him and Joe Citizen.
Hmph! Founders indeed. You wrote a decent constitution,
then completely ignored it by amending it several times
The amendments, the first 10 anyway, were part of
the deal. No constitition without explicitly spelling out
certain rights. I think that's the only thing that kept
the USA from becoming another Russia or another
Reich. Our 'leaders' labor endlessly to find ways of
reasoning around those enumerated rights - showing
us what the USA would have become if nobody had
bothered writing them down. The will to absolute
power is ALWAYS there.
WTF are you on about "part of the deal"?
Obviously an amendment means you changed it.
The whole point of the constitution is that it should never be
tampered with. Why have laws if they only work until
somebody deletes them?
Now in the UK style of government the position of
the PM is not anything the citizens get to vote on
directly, if I understand correctly. They elect reps
from their favorite parties and the reps of the
majority party select a PM from their ranks. This
makes those party reps somewhat equivalent
to our "electors" ... an extra layer of indirection
between citizen and highest executive.
Yip, a right farce. What's worse is the number of representatives
(MPs) is often nothing like the number of people that voted for that
party. For example UKIP got three times the number of votes as
SNP, yet SNP got fifty times more MPs!
Ok ... that's really weird ............
How do they justify that ? Size of represented area ?
Sheer number of voters per area ? Traditional
importance of area ? Nothing to do with area or
population ? Average penis dimensions ???
"First past the post", the stupidest voting system ever. The UK is
divided into sections, and an MP is voted in by residents of each section.
The party that gets in is the one with the most MPs.
So if as in the case of UKIP, they have a decent vote
throughout the whole country, but spread out, then they
get fuck all MPs.
But SNP has them all concentrated in one area, so they
get more MPs with less votes.
If an area has a small number of votes for party X, then that
party doesn't get their MP there, and those votes are completely
wasted.
Those people "inserting a layer of smarter people"
just THINK they're smarter.
In the 1780s "electors" really WOULD have been
choosen from the "smarter", better-educated,
subportion of the population. With a broader,
more worldly view and likely training in "liberal
arts" - including logic, philosophy and maybe
theology - when it came to running a country
properly, they would be the better choice.
In the 2000s ... um .... I still too often see where
Joe Citizen is lacking. Even worse it's become a
much "bigger world", a much more politically and
economically complicated world, since the 1700s.
Joe Citizen has not risen to the challenge. Even
the internet hasn't helped ... simply added a larger
volume of mis/dis-information.
Alas the "better" people you would want to be your
representatives, presidents and electors also have
fallen behind the proverbial curve. Statesmen are
few ... self-serving, self-absorbed, myopic pinheads
are far more common. There is little difference
now between "better" and the rabble and thus
bad decisions have increased.
Thinking about it all, clearly there IS NO "perfect"
system, no "perfect" form or shape of government.
Nothing even close to "perfect". We get a choice
between "horrible" and "not QUITE so horrible".
A large part of this problem is inescapable - it
is *people* - 8 billion constantly-mutating notions
of the way things ought to be. We are a species
that actually enjoys congitive dissonance and
believing six impossible things before breakfast.
So, until the Robot Overlords arrive, we're just stuck.
The "masses" must have more choice, it's that simple.
I'd back more choice for *some* things ... "lifestyle
issues" and other minimally-dangerous individual-
centered items. *Dangerous* things however - big
money, military force, international relations - better
to leave things as they are.
Bullshit! We are currently throwing away money bombing
countries when most of us don't want to!
Joe Citizen doesn't have the time nor inclination to
study the facts and details of almost anything the
State is doing. He doesn't have the resources to
do a good job of it even if he was so-inclined. He
cannot be a chemist and physicist and engineer
and biologist and ecologist and geologist and
economist and foreign-policy insider and .... well ...
if he voted correctly it would be by pure accident.
So instead he gets to vote for people who "seem
trustworthy" (often aren't), more of a "gut" reaction,
personality-appraisal - can be done with fewer
resources/info/training. Besides, all his "choices"
will have been vetted by the Big Money people,
not much difference between them.
Those "trustworthy" folk have biases. Putting it to the vote of the masses would be way better.
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 23:38:14 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:44:47 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:21:12 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:56:05 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>
[bandwidth snip]
Iran no matter HOW much he'd like it to happen.
There are no "pure democracies" in the world. Even
the classical Athenian experiment with that didn't
last very long. Plato was correct when he called
democracy a "degenerate system" - it's is a very
bad idea to give the uninformed rabble direct
and detailed control.
What a stupid viewpoint.
No, it's the intellegent - and realistic - viewpoint.
You're basically saying "don't let other peoples' votes count
because they aren't as clever as me". Nobody has the right
to say that.
Our Founders said it ... and I think they were correct,
at least as far as electing presidents go. "Mob logic"
can be a terrible thing - and you don't want it when
deciding, or electing someone who can decide, to
push the big red button.
It's not always an issue of "smartness" either, it's
an issue of crowd behavior. There was a line in a
movie some years back ... "A person is smart ;
PEOPLE are dumb panicky dangerous animals".
We may not LIKE to believe this but it's always been
true (and exploited). Certain safeguards are necessary
and the more money, power and tangible force involved
in the equation the stronger the safeguards must be.
There are some kinds of people who should never be
allowed to become a US president even if 99.99% of
the voters absolutely LOVE the guy. "Democracy" ?
Nice idea in the abstract, but there are times to be
coldly practical.
The world has endured meglomaniacs, psychotics,
sociopaths and outright lunatics elevated to positions
of great power far too often. It was a very bad thing
pre-industrial and these days is a literal world-ending
threat.
But who gets to decide which people say who is a psychotic?
It's all about your point of view.
Uh oh ... now you're getting all philosophical - reality
is what the collective We decide it is.
Sometimes true, sometimes not.
And anyone attempting to be objective can spot a loonie
at 50 paces .... yet any large GROUP may not. Interesting.
Now if you wish to discuss the extended meanings of
Platos allegory of the cave or the Buddhas remark that
reality is illusion, those are the hair-splitting quantum-
mechanics of the universe and our situation within it
and should be in another thread, probably another
group entirely. It's not really stuff humans can use
in their everyday lives anyway ...
The ONLY fair way is to allow EVERYONE to vote evenly.
"Fair" got Hitler into power ... another crowd-pleasing maniac.
"Fair" IS usually good. Not always good however. You are
looking for an otrhogonal system to govern a species with
decidedly unorthogonal behavior set - just won't work all of
the time. People are just *nuts* sometimes, but that's no
excuse to enshrine it in law, or in actions you can't take back.
What you think is mad someone else may think is sensible.
Means they're mad too :-)
If more people think a particular thing is sensible than mad,
then it should be deemed sensible.
Um ... no ... never. Votes do not create Truths, quantity is
not quality.
Our respective "representative" systems are intended
to alleviate the potential problems of "pure" democracy ...
but I think they introduce new routes of abuse/corruption.
Also, since the invention of the instant opinion poll,
representative systems tend to manifest some of the
problems of "pure" democracy as politicians try to please
all the people all of the time.
Who has the right to say the majority of the population
isn't clever enough to vote ?
In our case it was the Founders themselves. They
were very clever men ... and I think honest about
their citizens and wise about human nature. The
more power vested in an individual, the more layers
of insulation required between him and Joe Citizen.
Hmph! Founders indeed. You wrote a decent constitution,
then completely ignored it by amending it several times
The amendments, the first 10 anyway, were part of
the deal. No constitition without explicitly spelling out
certain rights. I think that's the only thing that kept
the USA from becoming another Russia or another
Reich. Our 'leaders' labor endlessly to find ways of
reasoning around those enumerated rights - showing
us what the USA would have become if nobody had
bothered writing them down. The will to absolute
power is ALWAYS there.
WTF are you on about "part of the deal"?
Just as I said ... without those amendments the delegation
would not have signed the constitution and there would have
been many "states of America" - probably emulating europe
and constantly at war with each other - rather than one
balanced union.
Obviously an amendment means you changed it.
Yes, and also in this case no. The main body of the document
was written and presented - and then amended - but strictly
speaking there was no constitution UNTIL everybody signed
on the line. So the original 10 amendments weren't to the
constitution, only to the proposed draft. Still get CALLED
"amendments" of course, but actually #11 was the first
true amendment to the US constitution :-)
The whole point of the constitution is that it should never be
tampered with. Why have laws if they only work until
somebody deletes them?
The US constitution contains a protocol for amending the
constitution. The Founders understood that they could
not anticipate EVERY important future issue.
Especially the one big thing they intentionally left OUT
of the constitution ... the issue of slaves. Just as they
had to make those 10 amendments to the draft to
get everyone to sign they also had to leave OUT any
end to slavery even though they KNEW it would
crop up more and more as time passed.
However they made it very DIFFICULT to amend the
constitution ... and the first 10 "amendments" are
considered to be root basic civil rights for free men
in a free republic and thus pretty much off-limits.
The integrity of the document lies in the difficulty of
changing it. It isn't perfect protection - there was
that amendment banning boooze, followed by one
about ten years later un-banning booze, so extreme
instances of righteous zeal CAN mar the document -
and a later return to sanity can fix it.
Now in the UK style of government the position of
the PM is not anything the citizens get to vote on
directly, if I understand correctly. They elect reps
from their favorite parties and the reps of the
majority party select a PM from their ranks. This
makes those party reps somewhat equivalent
to our "electors" ... an extra layer of indirection
between citizen and highest executive.
Yip, a right farce. What's worse is the number of representatives
(MPs) is often nothing like the number of people that voted for that
party. For example UKIP got three times the number of votes as
SNP, yet SNP got fifty times more MPs!
Ok ... that's really weird ............
How do they justify that ? Size of represented area ?
Sheer number of voters per area ? Traditional
importance of area ? Nothing to do with area or
population ? Average penis dimensions ???
"First past the post", the stupidest voting system ever. The UK is
divided into sections, and an MP is voted in by residents of each section.
Ok ... so far like a US "voting district", or individual states
when it comes to voting for president ....
The party that gets in is the one with the most MPs.
Pretty much like our Republicans -vs- Democrats.
So if as in the case of UKIP, they have a decent vote
throughout the whole country, but spread out, then they
get fuck all MPs.
Sounds like our "3rd parties" like the Libertarians or
Tea Party .... a decent number nationwide but not
enough in any ONE place to win an election. VERY
rare for 3rd-party candidates to be seen in the
federal legislature, Rand Paul may be the only one
at present.
But SNP has them all concentrated in one area, so they
get more MPs with less votes.
Understood.
The by-population -vs- by-state issue plagued our Founders
as well. It is why we have a Senate and Congress - the fix
was to do it both ways :-)
However elections for both are STILL regional ... so widely-
dispersed 3rd party adherents don't add up to butts in the
seats.
This MAY have been intentional - a "stabilizing" function
to ensure change didn't come TOO quickly.
If an area has a small number of votes for party X, then that
party doesn't get their MP there, and those votes are completely
wasted.
Mine would be completely wasted if I voted for an obscure
candidate.
Sounds like you want a whole-country proportional system
instead of the regional structuring.
I think you'd find though
that regions are regions because the people there share
common history, traditions, beliefs. They are "special" and
want a system that recognizes their specialness.
Our Senate gives equal power to each individual state, thus
adding clout to their "specialness" - which many states
are very proud of. We are the "United STATES" after
all ... not the "State of America".
So, despite differences in titles and names, the current
UK system isn't THAT much different from the USAs.
You DO seem to get a lot more "3rd parties" in there
than we do however
... a "coalition government" of
cooperating small parties is nothing we are familiar with.
As I said somewhere, Americans like things black & white ...
two clear choices. The only big change was LONG ago
when the Republicans displaced the Whigs.
Those people "inserting a layer of smarter people"
just THINK they're smarter.
In the 1780s "electors" really WOULD have been
choosen from the "smarter", better-educated,
subportion of the population. With a broader,
more worldly view and likely training in "liberal
arts" - including logic, philosophy and maybe
theology - when it came to running a country
properly, they would be the better choice.
In the 2000s ... um .... I still too often see where
Joe Citizen is lacking. Even worse it's become a
much "bigger world", a much more politically and
economically complicated world, since the 1700s.
Joe Citizen has not risen to the challenge. Even
the internet hasn't helped ... simply added a larger
volume of mis/dis-information.
Alas the "better" people you would want to be your
representatives, presidents and electors also have
fallen behind the proverbial curve. Statesmen are
few ... self-serving, self-absorbed, myopic pinheads
are far more common. There is little difference
now between "better" and the rabble and thus
bad decisions have increased.
Thinking about it all, clearly there IS NO "perfect"
system, no "perfect" form or shape of government.
Nothing even close to "perfect". We get a choice
between "horrible" and "not QUITE so horrible".
A large part of this problem is inescapable - it
is *people* - 8 billion constantly-mutating notions
of the way things ought to be. We are a species
that actually enjoys congitive dissonance and
believing six impossible things before breakfast.
So, until the Robot Overlords arrive, we're just stuck.
The "masses" must have more choice, it's that simple.
I'd back more choice for *some* things ... "lifestyle
issues" and other minimally-dangerous individual-
centered items. *Dangerous* things however - big
money, military force, international relations - better
to leave things as they are.
Bullshit! We are currently throwing away money bombing
countries when most of us don't want to!
Maybe "most" in the UK .... but most Americans COULD
be convinced to send waves of B-52s across the entire
middle east until nothing was left. A few more ISIL-related
terror incidents is all it would take. It doesn't bother us too
much if our poor folks and gangsters kill each other ... but
if some OUTSIDE entity does it then we get seriously
bent out of shape and vengance crusades get authorized.
Joe Citizen doesn't have the time nor inclination to
study the facts and details of almost anything the
State is doing. He doesn't have the resources to
do a good job of it even if he was so-inclined. He
cannot be a chemist and physicist and engineer
and biologist and ecologist and geologist and
economist and foreign-policy insider and .... well ...
if he voted correctly it would be by pure accident.
So instead he gets to vote for people who "seem
trustworthy" (often aren't), more of a "gut" reaction,
personality-appraisal - can be done with fewer
resources/info/training. Besides, all his "choices"
will have been vetted by the Big Money people,
not much difference between them.
Those "trustworthy" folk have biases. Putting it to the vote of the masses would be way better.
Everybody has biases ... and so can "the masses".
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 04:12:16 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 23:38:14 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:44:47 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
The world has endured meglomaniacs, psychotics,
sociopaths and outright lunatics elevated to positions
of great power far too often. It was a very bad thing
pre-industrial and these days is a literal world-ending
threat.
But who gets to decide which people say who is a psychotic?
It's all about your point of view.
Uh oh ... now you're getting all philosophical - reality
is what the collective We decide it is.
Sometimes true, sometimes not.
And anyone attempting to be objective can spot a loonie
at 50 paces .... yet any large GROUP may not. Interesting.
Now if you wish to discuss the extended meanings of
Platos allegory of the cave or the Buddhas remark that
reality is illusion, those are the hair-splitting quantum-
mechanics of the universe and our situation within it
and should be in another thread, probably another
group entirely. It's not really stuff humans can use
in their everyday lives anyway ...
No, you're the one being philosophical. And you were correct in your
first sentence, the collective decides what is wrong.
All of them, not just the few that think they're better than
the rest.
In fact take any group of people and they'll always think they're
better than the rest.
So you can't pick any group and say they're correct.
You must allow everyone an equal vote.
The ONLY fair way is to allow EVERYONE to vote evenly.
"Fair" got Hitler into power ... another crowd-pleasing maniac.
Hitler was a bloody good leader. If we hadn't stopped him,
the world would have been cleaned up quite a bit.
"Fair" IS usually good. Not always good however. You are
looking for an otrhogonal system to govern a species with
decidedly unorthogonal behavior set - just won't work all of
the time. People are just *nuts* sometimes, but that's no
excuse to enshrine it in law, or in actions you can't take back.
If most people want to be nuts, then nuts should be the rule.
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:16:58 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 04:12:16 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 23:38:14 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:44:47 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>
The world has endured meglomaniacs, psychotics,
sociopaths and outright lunatics elevated to positions
of great power far too often. It was a very bad thing
pre-industrial and these days is a literal world-ending
threat.
But who gets to decide which people say who is a psychotic?
It's all about your point of view.
Uh oh ... now you're getting all philosophical - reality
is what the collective We decide it is.
Sometimes true, sometimes not.
And anyone attempting to be objective can spot a loonie
at 50 paces .... yet any large GROUP may not. Interesting.
Now if you wish to discuss the extended meanings of
Platos allegory of the cave or the Buddhas remark that
reality is illusion, those are the hair-splitting quantum-
mechanics of the universe and our situation within it
and should be in another thread, probably another
group entirely. It's not really stuff humans can use
in their everyday lives anyway ...
No, you're the one being philosophical. And you were correct in your
first sentence, the collective decides what is wrong.
They DO get to decide what's "right" and "wrong" for
their fellow humans .... but they don't get to dictate
what's real or not. Salt will be sodium chloride even
if every human is convinced it's made of compressed
pixies.
All of them, not just the few that think they're better than
the rest.
Um ... do you have recurrent episodes where lots
of people say they're better than you ? :-)
In fact take any group of people and they'll always think they're
better than the rest.
There you go again ... maybe you should have that
looked into. Oh wait, the doc would probably think
he's better at medicine than you ..........
So you can't pick any group and say they're correct.
You must allow everyone an equal vote.
No. Not always. Experts on a subject get more
votes than those ignorant of the subject.
"Equal" is a laudable GOAL, but sometimes there
are people who are "more equal" on some specific
set of issues. A few walking Googles are "more
equal" at pretty much everything. Alas they rarely
run for public office ....
The ONLY fair way is to allow EVERYONE to vote evenly.
"Fair" got Hitler into power ... another crowd-pleasing maniac.
Hitler was a bloody good leader. If we hadn't stopped him,
the world would have been cleaned up quite a bit.
The plot thickens ....
"Fair" IS usually good. Not always good however. You are
looking for an otrhogonal system to govern a species with
decidedly unorthogonal behavior set - just won't work all of
the time. People are just *nuts* sometimes, but that's no
excuse to enshrine it in law, or in actions you can't take back.
If most people want to be nuts, then nuts should be the rule.
And now it's solidified hard as diamond .....
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just
a typo!
"spelt"
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death
of the irregular verb.
Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the"spelt"
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just
a typo!
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death
of the irregular verb.
Some American dove in and rescued it.
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:22:33 -0000, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@goutmail.com> wrote:
Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the"spelt"
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just
a typo!
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death
of the irregular verb.
Some American dove in and rescued it.
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows
I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the >guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows
I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the >> guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:19:07 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just
a typo!
"spelt"
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
No. Plenty friends here in the UK use spelled and say it's "correct".
It's a different form of the word to spelt, like burned and burnt. But I only acknowledge ONE past tense.
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death
of the irregular verb.
I've never heard anyone say "runned". I've also never heard anyone
say "pled" if that's even a word. What would you say instead of pleaded?
A word that annoys me is "dove". Not dove the bird, but dove as in past tense if dive, pronounced like cove.
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:19:07 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
It's a different form of the word to spelt, like burned and burnt. But I only acknowledge ONE past tense.
The tree burned - active, present tense (even if describing
a past incident as if you were actually there as a witness).
The tree burnt - probably should be "was burnt" - passive,
static, the aftermath.
Expect subtly different words like "burned" -vs- "burnt" or
"pled" -vs- "pleaded" or "spelt" -vs- "spelled" to disappear
as the trend towards a simpler, more standard, more
compact, version of the language continues.
On 2016-Jan-01 14:00, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows
I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the >>> guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Buck Buck Bacaw revealed long ago that he is a supporter of the British National Party, a cesspit designed to attract sociopaths. Not that I
blame Britain for that; every country seems to have something equivalent.
On 01/01/2016 06:47, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 2016-Jan-01 14:00, Mr. B1ack wrote:Is he related to Lauren?
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows >>>> I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching.
But.... the
guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Buck Buck Bacaw revealed long ago that he is a supporter of the British
National Party, a cesspit designed to attract sociopaths. Not that I
blame Britain for that; every country seems to have something equivalent.
On 2016-Jan-01 14:00, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows
I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the >>> guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Buck Buck Bacaw revealed long ago that he is a supporter of the British National Party, a cesspit designed to attract sociopaths. Not that I
blame Britain for that; every country seems to have something equivalent.
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:22:33 -0000, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@goutmail.com> wrote:
Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the"spelt"
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just
a typo!
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version. >>>>
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death
of the irregular verb.
Some American dove in and rescued it.
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows
I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the >> guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:19:07 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just
a typo!
"spelt"
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
No. Plenty friends here in the UK use spelled and say it's "correct".
If you bring up an American news source, look for stories
about people who were arrested by the police, you will
almost always see the word "pleaded" - guilty or innocent -
when he appeared before the judge. The use of "pled" is
increasingly rare.
Our dictionaries say "pleaded" and "pled" are both correct.
But I don't think so.
It's a different form of the word to spelt, like burned and burnt. But I only acknowledge ONE past tense.
The tree burned - active, present tense (even if describing
a past incident as if you were actually there as a witness).
The tree burnt - probably should be "was burnt" - passive,
static, the aftermath.
The difference is subtle. The difference may also be irrelevant
to the future of the language. In an age of handwritten letters
and literature most often written by the upper classes for the
upper classes readers had the time to muse on the more
subtle aspects of language and grammar. Todays world is
overloaded with communications and there is an emphasis
on transmitting the most data in the least time. The 1800's,
quality, the 2000's, quantity. I suppose TextSpeak is the
ultimate example of this trend.
Expect subtly different words like "burned" -vs- "burnt" or
"pled" -vs- "pleaded" or "spelt" -vs- "spelled" to disappear
as the trend towards a simpler, more standard, more
compact, version of the language continues.
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death
of the irregular verb.
I've never heard anyone say "runned". I've also never heard anyone
I hear it more and more - and from more 'educated' people - as
time goes on. It's "Blinglish' ... American "Black English", a sort
of pigin where non-speakers learned a language quickly and
skipped the more subtle rules. That which did happen often has
"-ed" at the end, so "run"/"runned", "sit"/"sitted" ... the simple
rule applied to everything. Mass exposure then leads to mass
usage.
say "pled" if that's even a word. What would you say instead of pleaded?
"Mr. Fracas was brought before a judge and pled 'not guilty'
to the charges ..... "
In 1960s America that would have been the most common way
of stating that in the news. Today it's "pleaded".
A word that annoys me is "dove". Not dove the bird, but dove as in past tense if dive, pronounced like cove.
You want "dived" ?
"Dove" is another irregular verb ... that's going away.
But if you want to sound smart you say "dove" :-)
50 years from now however, will anybody even understand
if you say "dove" ? It may be like the language of the Bard,
pretty but obsolete. Can you really appreciate Hamlet if
you cannot follow the meter and rhythm and play of his
obsolete words ??? Those were far richer plays to even
the common folk of his day than they are to the educated
class of today.
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:36:45 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:19:07 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj
<alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just
a typo!
"spelt"
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care
about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
No. Plenty friends here in the UK use spelled and say it's "correct".
If you bring up an American news source, look for stories
about people who were arrested by the police, you will
almost always see the word "pleaded" - guilty or innocent -
when he appeared before the judge. The use of "pled" is
increasingly rare.
Our dictionaries say "pleaded" and "pled" are both correct.
But I don't think so.
Pled is rare because it isn't a word, any more than I jamp over the wall.
It's a different form of the word to spelt, like burned and burnt.
But I only acknowledge ONE past tense.
The tree burned - active, present tense (even if describing
a past incident as if you were actually there as a witness).
The tree burnt - probably should be "was burnt" - passive,
static, the aftermath.
The difference is subtle. The difference may also be irrelevant
to the future of the language. In an age of handwritten letters
and literature most often written by the upper classes for the
upper classes readers had the time to muse on the more
subtle aspects of language and grammar. Todays world is
overloaded with communications and there is an emphasis
on transmitting the most data in the least time. The 1800's,
quality, the 2000's, quantity. I suppose TextSpeak is the
ultimate example of this trend.
Expect subtly different words like "burned" -vs- "burnt" or
"pled" -vs- "pleaded" or "spelt" -vs- "spelled" to disappear
as the trend towards a simpler, more standard, more
compact, version of the language continues.
As far as I'm concerned, the subtle difference is so small that it's completely unimportant. Not worth stopping to think which it is.
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death
of the irregular verb.
I've never heard anyone say "runned". I've also never heard anyone
I hear it more and more - and from more 'educated' people - as
time goes on. It's "Blinglish' ... American "Black English", a sort
of pigin where non-speakers learned a language quickly and
skipped the more subtle rules. That which did happen often has
"-ed" at the end, so "run"/"runned", "sit"/"sitted" ... the simple
rule applied to everything. Mass exposure then leads to mass
usage.
From someone who doesn't speak much English, someone here on holiday
maybe, but I don't expect it from anyone who speaks English everyday.
say "pled" if that's even a word. What would you say instead of
pleaded?
"Mr. Fracas was brought before a judge and pled 'not guilty'
to the charges ..... "
In 1960s America that would have been the most common way
of stating that in the news. Today it's "pleaded".
If someone said pled now I'd fall about laughing. In fact my newsreader
has underlined it in red.
A word that annoys me is "dove". Not dove the bird, but dove as in
past tense if dive, pronounced like cove.
You want "dived" ?
"Dove" is another irregular verb ... that's going away.
But if you want to sound smart you say "dove" :-)
50 years from now however, will anybody even understand
if you say "dove" ? It may be like the language of the Bard,
pretty but obsolete. Can you really appreciate Hamlet if
you cannot follow the meter and rhythm and play of his
obsolete words ??? Those were far richer plays to even
the common folk of his day than they are to the educated
class of today.
Isn't dove an Americanism like aluminum?
On 2016-Jan-01 14:00, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows
I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the >>> guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Buck Buck Bacaw revealed long ago that he is a supporter of the British >National Party, a cesspit designed to attract sociopaths. Not that I
blame Britain for that; every country seems to have something equivalent.
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 06:47:13 -0000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2016-Jan-01 14:00, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows >>>> I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the >>>> guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Buck Buck Bacaw revealed long ago that he is a supporter of the British
National Party, a cesspit designed to attract sociopaths. Not that I
blame Britain for that; every country seems to have something equivalent.
The BNP simply wants religious nuts out of Britain. Why do you
like religious nutters? Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Grow up ffs.
On 01/01/2016 11:00, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:36:45 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:19:07 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:No. Plenty friends here in the UK use spelled and say it's "correct".
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj
<alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just
a typo!
"spelt"
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care >>>>>> about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version. >>>>
If you bring up an American news source, look for stories
about people who were arrested by the police, you will
almost always see the word "pleaded" - guilty or innocent -
when he appeared before the judge. The use of "pled" is
increasingly rare.
Our dictionaries say "pleaded" and "pled" are both correct.
But I don't think so.
Pled is rare because it isn't a word, any more than I jamp over the wall.
It's a different form of the word to spelt, like burned and burnt.
But I only acknowledge ONE past tense.
The tree burned - active, present tense (even if describing
a past incident as if you were actually there as a witness).
The tree burnt - probably should be "was burnt" - passive,
static, the aftermath.
The difference is subtle. The difference may also be irrelevant
to the future of the language. In an age of handwritten letters
and literature most often written by the upper classes for the
upper classes readers had the time to muse on the more
subtle aspects of language and grammar. Todays world is
overloaded with communications and there is an emphasis
on transmitting the most data in the least time. The 1800's,
quality, the 2000's, quantity. I suppose TextSpeak is the
ultimate example of this trend.
Expect subtly different words like "burned" -vs- "burnt" or
"pled" -vs- "pleaded" or "spelt" -vs- "spelled" to disappear
as the trend towards a simpler, more standard, more
compact, version of the language continues.
As far as I'm concerned, the subtle difference is so small that it's
completely unimportant. Not worth stopping to think which it is.
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death >>>>> of the irregular verb.
I've never heard anyone say "runned". I've also never heard anyone
I hear it more and more - and from more 'educated' people - as
time goes on. It's "Blinglish' ... American "Black English", a sort
of pigin where non-speakers learned a language quickly and
skipped the more subtle rules. That which did happen often has
"-ed" at the end, so "run"/"runned", "sit"/"sitted" ... the simple
rule applied to everything. Mass exposure then leads to mass
usage.
From someone who doesn't speak much English, someone here on holiday
maybe, but I don't expect it from anyone who speaks English everyday.
say "pled" if that's even a word. What would you say instead of
pleaded?
"Mr. Fracas was brought before a judge and pled 'not guilty'
to the charges ..... "
In 1960s America that would have been the most common way
of stating that in the news. Today it's "pleaded".
If someone said pled now I'd fall about laughing. In fact my newsreader
has underlined it in red.
A word that annoys me is "dove". Not dove the bird, but dove as in
past tense if dive, pronounced like cove.
You want "dived" ?
"Dove" is another irregular verb ... that's going away.
But if you want to sound smart you say "dove" :-)
50 years from now however, will anybody even understand
if you say "dove" ? It may be like the language of the Bard,
pretty but obsolete. Can you really appreciate Hamlet if
you cannot follow the meter and rhythm and play of his
obsolete words ??? Those were far richer plays to even
the common folk of his day than they are to the educated
class of today.
Isn't dove an Americanism like aluminum?
How about "shined"?
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:00:40 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:22:33 -0000, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@goutmail.com> wrote:
Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the"spelt"
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just
a typo!
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version. >>>>>
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death >>>>> of the irregular verb.
Some American dove in and rescued it.
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows
I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the >>> guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Do you have empathy for an idiot ?
If you see someone deliberately doing something stupid and
about to kill himself, would you stop him? Why?
Why does the world need him alive?
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 17:47:13 +1100, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
On 2016-Jan-01 14:00, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows >>>> I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the >>>> guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Buck Buck Bacaw revealed long ago that he is a supporter of the British
National Party, a cesspit designed to attract sociopaths. Not that I
blame Britain for that; every country seems to have something equivalent.
Hmm ... do sociopaths enjoy each others company ? :-)
On 2016-Jan-01 14:36, Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:19:07 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
[...]
It's a different form of the word to spelt, like burned and burnt. But I only acknowledge ONE past tense.
The tree burned - active, present tense (even if describing
a past incident as if you were actually there as a witness).
The tree burnt - probably should be "was burnt" - passive,
static, the aftermath.
[...]
Expect subtly different words like "burned" -vs- "burnt" or
"pled" -vs- "pleaded" or "spelt" -vs- "spelled" to disappear
as the trend towards a simpler, more standard, more
compact, version of the language continues.
I have the impression that strong verbs -- those that decline via vowel >changes, as opposed to those that use the weak verb "-ed" suffix -- are >gradually disappearing from English, but it's hard to be sure because
new forms like "dove" appear now and then. I have a feeling that
childish declensions like bring/brang/brung are also moving into the >mainstream, little by little.
The "-t" suffix, as seen in swept, burnt, dreamt, and so on, will
probably last a lot longer. Why? Because a [t] also exists in the spoken >language. Even those people who say "sweeped" are likely to pronounce it >[swipt], i.e. the final consonant is unvoiced. As long as we have past
forms that end in an unvoiced consonant, there will be pressure to make
the written form consistent with the spoken form.
Here I'm talking about my own (Australian) version of English, but the >reasoning probably also works for most BrE dialects. American English is
a different matter. American pronunciation appears to have evolved in
the direction of blurring the distinction between final /t/ and /d/.
Thus, Americans are less likely to perceive a difference between the
"-t" and "-ed" past tense suffixes, and therefore more likely to choose
the "-ed" form on the grounds of regularity.
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:36:45 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
I've never heard anyone say "runned". I've also never heard anyone
I hear it more and more - and from more 'educated' people - as
time goes on. It's "Blinglish' ... American "Black English", a sort
of pigin where non-speakers learned a language quickly and
skipped the more subtle rules. That which did happen often has
"-ed" at the end, so "run"/"runned", "sit"/"sitted" ... the simple
rule applied to everything. Mass exposure then leads to mass
usage.
From someone who doesn't speak much English, someone here on
holiday maybe, but I don't expect it from anyone who speaks English
everyday.
say "pled" if that's even a word. What would you say instead of pleaded? >>"Mr. Fracas was brought before a judge and pled 'not guilty'
to the charges ..... "
In 1960s America that would have been the most common way
of stating that in the news. Today it's "pleaded".
If someone said pled now I'd fall about laughing. In fact my newsreader has underlined it in red.
A word that annoys me is "dove". Not dove the bird, but dove as in past tense if dive, pronounced like cove.
You want "dived" ?
"Dove" is another irregular verb ... that's going away.
But if you want to sound smart you say "dove" :-)
50 years from now however, will anybody even understand
if you say "dove" ? It may be like the language of the Bard,
pretty but obsolete. Can you really appreciate Hamlet if
you cannot follow the meter and rhythm and play of his
obsolete words ??? Those were far richer plays to even
the common folk of his day than they are to the educated
class of today.
Isn't dove an Americanism like aluminum?
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:57:35 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:00:40 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:22:33 -0000, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@goutmail.com> wrote:
Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the"spelt"
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just
a typo!
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version. >>>>>>
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death >>>>>> of the irregular verb.
Some American dove in and rescued it.
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows >>>> I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the >>>> guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Do you have empathy for an idiot ?
Actually, idiots need the MOST empathy ...
If you see someone deliberately doing something stupid and
about to kill himself, would you stop him? Why?
Because there's hope for improvement.
Why does the world need him alive?
Because he has moral worth.
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 11:00:40 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:36:45 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
I've never heard anyone say "runned". I've also never heard anyone
I hear it more and more - and from more 'educated' people - as
time goes on. It's "Blinglish' ... American "Black English", a sort
of pigin where non-speakers learned a language quickly and
skipped the more subtle rules. That which did happen often has
"-ed" at the end, so "run"/"runned", "sit"/"sitted" ... the simple
rule applied to everything. Mass exposure then leads to mass
usage.
From someone who doesn't speak much English, someone here on
holiday maybe, but I don't expect it from anyone who speaks English
everyday.
The internet does have the ability to educate - it's not ALL porn.
So find on-the-street news coverage, say of the "Black Lives
Matter" demonstrations. Street interviews will reveal the local
lingo - and it is as I've said. The professional newscasters try
to keep it more formal, but even they might say "runned" or
"hitted" or "shooted" if they are "live" and do not have time
to mentally edit their speech.
say "pled" if that's even a word. What would you say instead of pleaded? >>>"Mr. Fracas was brought before a judge and pled 'not guilty'
to the charges ..... "
In 1960s America that would have been the most common way
of stating that in the news. Today it's "pleaded".
If someone said pled now I'd fall about laughing. In fact my newsreader has underlined it in red.
A word that annoys me is "dove". Not dove the bird, but dove as in past tense if dive, pronounced like cove.
You want "dived" ?
"Dove" is another irregular verb ... that's going away.
But if you want to sound smart you say "dove" :-)
50 years from now however, will anybody even understand
if you say "dove" ? It may be like the language of the Bard,
pretty but obsolete. Can you really appreciate Hamlet if
you cannot follow the meter and rhythm and play of his
obsolete words ??? Those were far richer plays to even
the common folk of his day than they are to the educated
class of today.
Isn't dove an Americanism like aluminum?
I am unaware of its full extent. I've definitely heard the
word on BBC television - news and entertainment - so
"dove" has made it back to the motherland.
It will surely filter down to all speakers from there. Frankly
I think it sounds more educated than "dived" and is
more specific than "jumped".
"Aluminum" isn't an Americanism per-se .... the
PRONUNCIATION is. Americans say "Ah-LOOM-
uh-num" while Brits (and surely those in Oz and
NZ) say "Al-You-MIN-ee-um". The latter really
does seem to sound better with a "British accent".
From the spelling, the British form also seems
more correct. Sharp/crisp-sounding words do
tend to "soften" with time and distance ... become
more "vowely".
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:19:07 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj
<alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just
a typo!
"spelt"
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care
about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
No. Plenty friends here in the UK use spelled and say it's "correct".
If you bring up an American news source, look for stories
about people who were arrested by the police, you will
almost always see the word "pleaded" - guilty or innocent -
when he appeared before the judge. The use of "pled" is
increasingly rare.
Our dictionaries say "pleaded" and "pled" are both correct.
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 02:52:29 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:58:10 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 06:47:13 -0000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:Out of Britain and to WHERE exactly ... ? You already sent
On 2016-Jan-01 14:00, Mr. B1ack wrote:The BNP simply wants religious nuts out of Britain. Why do you
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows >>>>>> I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the
guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Buck Buck Bacaw revealed long ago that he is a supporter of the British >>>> National Party, a cesspit designed to attract sociopaths. Not that I
blame Britain for that; every country seems to have something equivalent. >>>
like religious nutters? Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Grow up ffs. >>
all those damned Puritans and other religious nuts over to
the colonies and they've been an everlasting affliction ! So
keep your Syrians - we don't need people even MORE
stuck-up than the Puritans over on our side of the pond.
To their own country.
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:41:41 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 11:00:40 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:36:45 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
I've never heard anyone say "runned". I've also never heard anyone
I hear it more and more - and from more 'educated' people - as
time goes on. It's "Blinglish' ... American "Black English", a sort >>>> of pigin where non-speakers learned a language quickly and
skipped the more subtle rules. That which did happen often has
"-ed" at the end, so "run"/"runned", "sit"/"sitted" ... the simple
rule applied to everything. Mass exposure then leads to mass
usage.
From someone who doesn't speak much English, someone here on
holiday maybe, but I don't expect it from anyone who speaks English
everyday.
The internet does have the ability to educate - it's not ALL porn.
So find on-the-street news coverage, say of the "Black Lives
Matter" demonstrations. Street interviews will reveal the local
lingo - and it is as I've said. The professional newscasters try
to keep it more formal, but even they might say "runned" or
"hitted" or "shooted" if they are "live" and do not have time
to mentally edit their speech.
Ah, blacks.
say "pled" if that's even a word. What would you say instead of pleaded? >>>>"Mr. Fracas was brought before a judge and pled 'not guilty'
to the charges ..... "
In 1960s America that would have been the most common way
of stating that in the news. Today it's "pleaded".
If someone said pled now I'd fall about laughing. In fact my newsreader has underlined it in red.
A word that annoys me is "dove". Not dove the bird, but dove as in past tense if dive, pronounced like cove.
You want "dived" ?
"Dove" is another irregular verb ... that's going away.
But if you want to sound smart you say "dove" :-)
50 years from now however, will anybody even understand
if you say "dove" ? It may be like the language of the Bard,
pretty but obsolete. Can you really appreciate Hamlet if
you cannot follow the meter and rhythm and play of his
obsolete words ??? Those were far richer plays to even
the common folk of his day than they are to the educated
class of today.
Isn't dove an Americanism like aluminum?
I am unaware of its full extent. I've definitely heard the
word on BBC television - news and entertainment - so
"dove" has made it back to the motherland.
The BBC is no longer what it once was.
It will surely filter down to all speakers from there. Frankly
I think it sounds more educated than "dived" and is
more specific than "jumped".
Would you say jove for the past tense of jive? Love for the past tense of live?
"Aluminum" isn't an Americanism per-se .... the
PRONUNCIATION is. Americans say "Ah-LOOM-
uh-num" while Brits (and surely those in Oz and
NZ) say "Al-You-MIN-ee-um". The latter really
does seem to sound better with a "British accent".
From the spelling, the British form also seems
more correct. Sharp/crisp-sounding words do
tend to "soften" with time and distance ... become
more "vowely".
The spell it different aswell as pronounce it different.
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 02:54:33 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:57:35 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:00:40 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:22:33 -0000, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@goutmail.com> wrote:
Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the"spelt"
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just
a typo!
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version. >>>>>>>
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death >>>>>>> of the irregular verb.
Some American dove in and rescued it.
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows >>>>> I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the
guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Do you have empathy for an idiot ?
Actually, idiots need the MOST empathy ...
Nobody needs empathy.
If you see someone deliberately doing something stupid and
about to kill himself, would you stop him? Why?
Because there's hope for improvement.
Improvement is getting rid of the idiots. If they want to do that themselves, then why don't you have a jolly good laugh while they're doing it, then enjoy life without them in future?
Why does the world need him alive?
Because he has moral worth.
Morals achieve nothing.
"Colour" -vs- "color" ? Americans are lazy too, we tend
to drop "useless" letters :-)
There's a reason irregular verbs are called "irregular".
Conventions, homegrown or imported, that just stuck,
likely because somebody important used them. They
do not follow from any "rule".
Hmm ... is there "Hindglish" - Hindi-English - in the UK ? Lotsbound to be
of immigrants from there, held partially segregated for
racial & class reasons for over 100 years ....
some interesting words and grammar ......
In article <7vqb8b95jor48901lu05sihhlpnvff4i8j@4ax.com>,
Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:19:07 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj
<alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just
a typo!
"spelt"
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care
about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
No. Plenty friends here in the UK use spelled and say it's "correct".
If you bring up an American news source, look for stories
about people who were arrested by the police, you will
almost always see the word "pleaded" - guilty or innocent -
when he appeared before the judge. The use of "pled" is
increasingly rare.
Our dictionaries say "pleaded" and "pled" are both correct.
I brought this up a short time ago, because I have been hearing
"pleaded" for a while and I thought the change from "pled" had been
recent. However, many people said that pleaded has been used for quite
some time, both in AmE and BrE. So, I don't know why I thought "pled"
was common. Unless, it was common 50+ years ago, which to me is recent.
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:42:49 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 02:52:29 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:58:10 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 06:47:13 -0000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:Out of Britain and to WHERE exactly ... ? You already sent
On 2016-Jan-01 14:00, Mr. B1ack wrote:The BNP simply wants religious nuts out of Britain. Why do you
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows >>>>>>> I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the
guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I >>>>>>> save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Buck Buck Bacaw revealed long ago that he is a supporter of the British >>>>> National Party, a cesspit designed to attract sociopaths. Not that I >>>>> blame Britain for that; every country seems to have something equivalent. >>>>
like religious nutters? Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Grow up ffs. >>>
all those damned Puritans and other religious nuts over to
the colonies and they've been an everlasting affliction ! So
keep your Syrians - we don't need people even MORE
stuck-up than the Puritans over on our side of the pond.
To their own country.
Hmm ... seems to have exploded alas ..............
Maybe the Chinese can build them a nice new island ?
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:44:09 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 02:54:33 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:57:35 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:00:40 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:22:33 -0000, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@goutmail.com> wrote:
Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the"spelt"
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just >>>>>>>>>>> a typo!
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version. >>>>>>>>
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death >>>>>>>> of the irregular verb.
Some American dove in and rescued it.
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows >>>>>> I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the
guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I
save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Do you have empathy for an idiot ?
Actually, idiots need the MOST empathy ...
Nobody needs empathy.
If you see someone deliberately doing something stupid and
about to kill himself, would you stop him? Why?
Because there's hope for improvement.
Improvement is getting rid of the idiots. If they want to do that themselves, then why don't you have a jolly good laugh while they're doing it, then enjoy life without them in future?
Why does the world need him alive?
Because he has moral worth.
Morals achieve nothing.
I'll mark you down as a Donald Trump voter.
In article <0t1h8bdcs6gjq6dlggpk52e9cdph97746f@4ax.com>,
nowhere@nada.net says...
Hmm ... is there "Hindglish" - Hindi-English - in the UK ? Lotsbound to be
of immigrants from there, held partially segregated for
racial & class reasons for over 100 years ....
some interesting words and grammar ......
Lots of words, not just brought by the immigrants.
Civil Service staff from Britain ran and administered the British
Empire in India.For many of them, learning Hindi, Urdu or various other >native languages was an essential requirement of the job. Their wives
also learned at least some so that they could communicate with their
domestic servants.
So, long before large immigrations from the subcontinent to UK, many
words from their languages had been acquired and brought back by Brits
and so completely absorbed into Br E everyone uses them. Examples
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-Hindi-Sanskrit-Urdu-words-
borrowed-by-the-English-language
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:46:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:41:41 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 11:00:40 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:36:45 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
I've never heard anyone say "runned". I've also never heard anyone >>>>>I hear it more and more - and from more 'educated' people - as
time goes on. It's "Blinglish' ... American "Black English", a sort >>>>> of pigin where non-speakers learned a language quickly and
skipped the more subtle rules. That which did happen often has
"-ed" at the end, so "run"/"runned", "sit"/"sitted" ... the simple >>>>> rule applied to everything. Mass exposure then leads to mass
usage.
From someone who doesn't speak much English, someone here on
holiday maybe, but I don't expect it from anyone who speaks English
everyday.
The internet does have the ability to educate - it's not ALL porn.
So find on-the-street news coverage, say of the "Black Lives
Matter" demonstrations. Street interviews will reveal the local
lingo - and it is as I've said. The professional newscasters try
to keep it more formal, but even they might say "runned" or
"hitted" or "shooted" if they are "live" and do not have time
to mentally edit their speech.
Ah, blacks.
There are also pidgins amongst the "Spanish" subcultures
(Mexican isn't Guatamalan isn't Cuban isn't Puerto Rican)
and the longer-established asian enclaves. 'Cajun'/Acadian
"Fringlish" permeates much of the state of Louisiana as well.
The sheer size of the USA allowed immigrants from many
nations to form partial enclaves where the Queens english
mixed with the local lingo in odd and interesting ways.
Hmm ... is there "Hindglish" - Hindi-English - in the UK ? Lots
of immigrants from there, held partially segregated for
racial & class reasons for over 100 years .... bound to be
some interesting words and grammar ......
say "pled" if that's even a word. What would you say instead of pleaded?
"Mr. Fracas was brought before a judge and pled 'not guilty'
to the charges ..... "
In 1960s America that would have been the most common way
of stating that in the news. Today it's "pleaded".
If someone said pled now I'd fall about laughing. In fact my newsreader has underlined it in red.
A word that annoys me is "dove". Not dove the bird, but dove as in past tense if dive, pronounced like cove.
You want "dived" ?
"Dove" is another irregular verb ... that's going away.
But if you want to sound smart you say "dove" :-)
50 years from now however, will anybody even understand
if you say "dove" ? It may be like the language of the Bard,
pretty but obsolete. Can you really appreciate Hamlet if
you cannot follow the meter and rhythm and play of his
obsolete words ??? Those were far richer plays to even
the common folk of his day than they are to the educated
class of today.
Isn't dove an Americanism like aluminum?
I am unaware of its full extent. I've definitely heard the
word on BBC television - news and entertainment - so
"dove" has made it back to the motherland.
The BBC is no longer what it once was.
Maybe ... but it's still a cut above any American news/culture
programming. Americans have a very short attention span
and despise "egghead" discussions. A practical, blue-collar,
black & white novelty-loving culture. Car crashes, police
chases and "Funniest Home Videos" reign supreme.
Ah ... an episode of "Dr. Who" sometime last year ... the MI-6
lady tells another why they've kept a time-travel device secret
from the Americans ... "Well, you've seen their movies !" :-)
It will surely filter down to all speakers from there. Frankly
I think it sounds more educated than "dived" and is
more specific than "jumped".
Would you say jove for the past tense of jive? Love for the past tense of live?
There's a reason irregular verbs are called "irregular".
Conventions, homegrown or imported, that just stuck,
likely because somebody important used them. They
do not follow from any "rule".
"Aluminum" isn't an Americanism per-se .... the
PRONUNCIATION is. Americans say "Ah-LOOM-
uh-num" while Brits (and surely those in Oz and
NZ) say "Al-You-MIN-ee-um". The latter really
does seem to sound better with a "British accent".
From the spelling, the British form also seems
more correct. Sharp/crisp-sounding words do
tend to "soften" with time and distance ... become
more "vowely".
The spell it different aswell as pronounce it different.
"Colour" -vs- "color" ? Americans are lazy too, we tend
to drop "useless" letters :-)
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 02:55:55 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:44:09 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 02:54:33 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:57:35 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:00:40 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:22:33 -0000, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@goutmail.com> wrote:
Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the"spelt"
internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just >>>>>>>>>>>> a typo!
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death >>>>>>>>> of the irregular verb.
Some American dove in and rescued it.
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows >>>>>>> I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the
guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I >>>>>>> save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Do you have empathy for an idiot ?
Actually, idiots need the MOST empathy ...
Nobody needs empathy.
If you see someone deliberately doing something stupid and
about to kill himself, would you stop him? Why?
Because there's hope for improvement.
Improvement is getting rid of the idiots. If they want to do that themselves, then why don't you have a jolly good laugh while they're doing it, then enjoy life without them in future?
Why does the world need him alive?
Because he has moral worth.
Morals achieve nothing.
I'll mark you down as a Donald Trump voter.
I would if I was in America. It's almost 50% voting for him in the polls I looked at.
Oh ... you seem well informed ... there's a Britishism
that eludes me - saying somebody is "in hospital" rather
than "in the hospital" or "in a hospital". Americans DO
say "in prison" however ...
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 02:52:37 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:46:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:41:41 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 11:00:40 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:36:45 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>
I've never heard anyone say "runned". I've also never heard anyone >>>>>>I hear it more and more - and from more 'educated' people - as
time goes on. It's "Blinglish' ... American "Black English", a sort >>>>>> of pigin where non-speakers learned a language quickly and
skipped the more subtle rules. That which did happen often has
"-ed" at the end, so "run"/"runned", "sit"/"sitted" ... the simple >>>>>> rule applied to everything. Mass exposure then leads to mass
usage.
From someone who doesn't speak much English, someone here on
holiday maybe, but I don't expect it from anyone who speaks English
everyday.
The internet does have the ability to educate - it's not ALL porn.
So find on-the-street news coverage, say of the "Black Lives
Matter" demonstrations. Street interviews will reveal the local
lingo - and it is as I've said. The professional newscasters try
to keep it more formal, but even they might say "runned" or
"hitted" or "shooted" if they are "live" and do not have time
to mentally edit their speech.
Ah, blacks.
There are also pidgins amongst the "Spanish" subcultures
(Mexican isn't Guatamalan isn't Cuban isn't Puerto Rican)
and the longer-established asian enclaves. 'Cajun'/Acadian
"Fringlish" permeates much of the state of Louisiana as well.
The sheer size of the USA allowed immigrants from many
nations to form partial enclaves where the Queens english
mixed with the local lingo in odd and interesting ways.
Hmm ... is there "Hindglish" - Hindi-English - in the UK ? Lots
of immigrants from there, held partially segregated for
racial & class reasons for over 100 years .... bound to be
some interesting words and grammar ......
Hindis here speak very clearly and use proper English, but leave no
spaces between the words. Easy to understand if you can prevent
yourself from laughing.
"Colour" -vs- "color" ? Americans are lazy too, we tend
to drop "useless" letters :-)
You're not lazy when it comes to eating!
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:10:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 02:55:55 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:44:09 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 02:54:33 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:57:35 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:00:40 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>>>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:22:33 -0000, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@goutmail.com> wrote:
Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just >>>>>>>>>>>>> a typo!"spelt"
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death
of the irregular verb.
Some American dove in and rescued it.
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows >>>>>>>> I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the
guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I >>>>>>>> save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Do you have empathy for an idiot ?
Actually, idiots need the MOST empathy ...
Nobody needs empathy.
If you see someone deliberately doing something stupid and
about to kill himself, would you stop him? Why?
Because there's hope for improvement.
Improvement is getting rid of the idiots. If they want to do that themselves, then why don't you have a jolly good laugh while they're doing it, then enjoy life without them in future?
Why does the world need him alive?
Because he has moral worth.
Morals achieve nothing.
I'll mark you down as a Donald Trump voter.
I would if I was in America. It's almost 50% voting for him in the polls I looked at.
Mussolini was popular too.
Blend nationalism, xenophobia, paranoia and
"simple solutions" together and you too can
become the next Great Dictator.
Oh, and that's 50% IN HIS POLITICAL PARTY.
It remains to be seen if that'd translate into
50% in the general election.
An added kink is that US elections aren't won by
direct popular vote ... entire states are won or lost
and then contribute their share of "electoral votes"
(cast by special reps called "electors"). Our "big"
states ... California, New York, Florida ... have so
many electoral votes that they are "must wins" for
anybody seeking the presidency.
California and New York are pretty damned "left-
wing". Trump is not.
So, it is possible to get the majority of the popular
votes yet still lose the election. I think this happened
to Al Gore when he ran against (GW) Bush.
This "electoral college" system was implemented at
the very beginning because so many in the 1780s were
illiterate, ill-informed, uneducated, easily-misled
farmhands and the idea was to insert a layer of
smarter people between them and whomever would
be president. It also increased the political clout of
a few "important" states.
An 'elector' doesn't HAVE to abide by the popular vote ...
so they are a sort of emergency device to block would-be
Mussolinis riding a wave of irrational public zeal.
Americans are STILL suboptimally-literate, ill-informed,
under-educated and easily misled ... though far less
likely to be farmhands. If Trump wins the popular vote
this may be the first time since the Founding that the
electors actually intervene in a serious manner. It
would cause chaos though of course, maybe even
some sort of coup.
We shall see.
As horrible as Trump is though, he's STILL preferable
to Mrs. Clinton. The march of ultraleft idiocy has gone
too far and Trump would send it crying home to mama.
Of course, add 25 years or so, and the right-wing idiocy
level will become objectionable once again ..... nobody
seems happy with the sensible center.
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 18:36:22 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 02:52:37 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:46:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:41:41 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 11:00:40 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:36:45 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>>>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
I've never heard anyone say "runned". I've also never heard anyone >>>>>>>I hear it more and more - and from more 'educated' people - as >>>>>>> time goes on. It's "Blinglish' ... American "Black English", a sort >>>>>>> of pigin where non-speakers learned a language quickly and
skipped the more subtle rules. That which did happen often has >>>>>>> "-ed" at the end, so "run"/"runned", "sit"/"sitted" ... the simple >>>>>>> rule applied to everything. Mass exposure then leads to mass
usage.
From someone who doesn't speak much English, someone here on
holiday maybe, but I don't expect it from anyone who speaks English >>>>>> everyday.
The internet does have the ability to educate - it's not ALL porn. >>>>>
So find on-the-street news coverage, say of the "Black Lives
Matter" demonstrations. Street interviews will reveal the local
lingo - and it is as I've said. The professional newscasters try
to keep it more formal, but even they might say "runned" or
"hitted" or "shooted" if they are "live" and do not have time
to mentally edit their speech.
Ah, blacks.
There are also pidgins amongst the "Spanish" subcultures
(Mexican isn't Guatamalan isn't Cuban isn't Puerto Rican)
and the longer-established asian enclaves. 'Cajun'/Acadian
"Fringlish" permeates much of the state of Louisiana as well.
The sheer size of the USA allowed immigrants from many
nations to form partial enclaves where the Queens english
mixed with the local lingo in odd and interesting ways.
Hmm ... is there "Hindglish" - Hindi-English - in the UK ? Lots
of immigrants from there, held partially segregated for
racial & class reasons for over 100 years .... bound to be
some interesting words and grammar ......
Hindis here speak very clearly and use proper English, but leave no
spaces between the words. Easy to understand if you can prevent
yourself from laughing.
They run practically every "convenience store" in America
at this point, so we're well-exposed :-)
They seem to replace the 'gaps' with harder letter sounds,
"WeMustNowGoToTheMeeting" - at least to my ear. This,
combined with their native accents, can make it rather
difficult to understand them at times.
Now if you want funny,
find a store clerk that has been living in our deep south
for a long time ... Hindglish with a slow drawl :-)
"Colour" -vs- "color" ? Americans are lazy too, we tend
to drop "useless" letters :-)
You're not lazy when it comes to eating!
We're hardly the only 'pudgy' country in
the world.
To some extent I think our culinary habits
are a reflection of the "great depression"
of the 1930s. There were a lot of skinny
kids then ... and not skinny by choice.
Once the food returned I think they started
making up for lost calories - 'fat' meant
'healthy', 'happy' and to some degree 'wealthy'.
There are also our not-THAT distant colonial
roots where people expended vast amounts
of energy in hard labor in rugged environments.
A 6000 kCal dinner wasn't actually excessive.
The recipies and traditions stuck ... even after
life became easier.
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:41:41 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
It will surely filter down to all speakers from there. Frankly
I think it sounds more educated than "dived" and is
more specific than "jumped".
Would you say jove for the past tense of jive? Love for the past tense
of live?
On 02/01/2016 20:46, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:41:41 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
It will surely filter down to all speakers from there. Frankly
I think it sounds more educated than "dived" and is
more specific than "jumped".
Would you say jove for the past tense of jive? Love for the past tense
of live?
Drove for the past tense of drive... oh, wait...
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 22:32:07 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:10:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 02:55:55 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:44:09 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 02:54:33 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>>
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:57:35 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:00:40 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:22:33 -0000, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@goutmail.com> wrote:
Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a typo!"spelt"
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death
of the irregular verb.
Some American dove in and rescued it.
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows
I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the
guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I >>>>>>>>> save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Do you have empathy for an idiot ?
Actually, idiots need the MOST empathy ...
Nobody needs empathy.
If you see someone deliberately doing something stupid and
about to kill himself, would you stop him? Why?
Because there's hope for improvement.
Improvement is getting rid of the idiots. If they want to do that themselves, then why don't you have a jolly good laugh while they're doing it, then enjoy life without them in future?
Why does the world need him alive?
Because he has moral worth.
Morals achieve nothing.
I'll mark you down as a Donald Trump voter.
I would if I was in America. It's almost 50% voting for him in the polls I looked at.
Mussolini was popular too.
Blend nationalism, xenophobia, paranoia and
"simple solutions" together and you too can
become the next Great Dictator.
Oh, and that's 50% IN HIS POLITICAL PARTY.
It remains to be seen if that'd translate into
50% in the general election.
An added kink is that US elections aren't won by
direct popular vote ... entire states are won or lost
and then contribute their share of "electoral votes"
(cast by special reps called "electors"). Our "big"
states ... California, New York, Florida ... have so
many electoral votes that they are "must wins" for
anybody seeking the presidency.
California and New York are pretty damned "left-
wing". Trump is not.
So, it is possible to get the majority of the popular
votes yet still lose the election. I think this happened
to Al Gore when he ran against (GW) Bush.
This "electoral college" system was implemented at
the very beginning because so many in the 1780s were
illiterate, ill-informed, uneducated, easily-misled
farmhands and the idea was to insert a layer of
smarter people between them and whomever would
be president. It also increased the political clout of
a few "important" states.
An 'elector' doesn't HAVE to abide by the popular vote ...
so they are a sort of emergency device to block would-be
Mussolinis riding a wave of irrational public zeal.
Americans are STILL suboptimally-literate, ill-informed,
under-educated and easily misled ... though far less
likely to be farmhands. If Trump wins the popular vote
this may be the first time since the Founding that the
electors actually intervene in a serious manner. It
would cause chaos though of course, maybe even
some sort of coup.
We shall see.
As horrible as Trump is though, he's STILL preferable
to Mrs. Clinton. The march of ultraleft idiocy has gone
too far and Trump would send it crying home to mama.
Of course, add 25 years or so, and the right-wing idiocy
level will become objectionable once again ..... nobody
seems happy with the sensible center.
In another words, America is no more of a democracy than the UK.
Who has the right to say the majority of the population
isn't clever enough to vote ?
The majority MUST decide what happens, or it's not
a democracy.
Those people "inserting a layer of smarter people"
just THINK they're smarter.
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:25:00 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 22:32:07 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:10:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 02:55:55 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:44:09 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 02:54:33 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>>>
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:57:35 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:00:40 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:12:47 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:22:33 -0000, James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@goutmail.com> wrote:
Mr. B1ack wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote:
In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>,Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care about. In my example, lenght is not a word.
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted:
15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a typo!"spelt"
about 12,700,000 search results.
"spelled"
about 50,500,000 search results.
"Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version.
"Pleaded" and "runned" are American 'Blinglish' ... the slow death
of the irregular verb.
Some American dove in and rescued it.
I'm never sure if I'd rescue someone from drowning. If I do, it shows
I'm braver than all the other pathetic people stood watching. But.... the
guy drowning should have learnt to swim properly, so why should I >>>>>>>>>> save him?
Tisk ... all about YOU .......
Seems you were never schooled in the Golden Rule, the
foundation of ethics - empathy 101.
Do you have empathy for an idiot ?
Actually, idiots need the MOST empathy ...
Nobody needs empathy.
If you see someone deliberately doing something stupid and
about to kill himself, would you stop him? Why?
Because there's hope for improvement.
Improvement is getting rid of the idiots. If they want to do that themselves, then why don't you have a jolly good laugh while they're doing it, then enjoy life without them in future?
Why does the world need him alive?
Because he has moral worth.
Morals achieve nothing.
I'll mark you down as a Donald Trump voter.
I would if I was in America. It's almost 50% voting for him in the polls I looked at.
Mussolini was popular too.
Blend nationalism, xenophobia, paranoia and
"simple solutions" together and you too can
become the next Great Dictator.
Oh, and that's 50% IN HIS POLITICAL PARTY.
It remains to be seen if that'd translate into
50% in the general election.
An added kink is that US elections aren't won by
direct popular vote ... entire states are won or lost
and then contribute their share of "electoral votes"
(cast by special reps called "electors"). Our "big"
states ... California, New York, Florida ... have so
many electoral votes that they are "must wins" for
anybody seeking the presidency.
California and New York are pretty damned "left-
wing". Trump is not.
So, it is possible to get the majority of the popular
votes yet still lose the election. I think this happened
to Al Gore when he ran against (GW) Bush.
This "electoral college" system was implemented at
the very beginning because so many in the 1780s were
illiterate, ill-informed, uneducated, easily-misled
farmhands and the idea was to insert a layer of
smarter people between them and whomever would
be president. It also increased the political clout of
a few "important" states.
An 'elector' doesn't HAVE to abide by the popular vote ...
so they are a sort of emergency device to block would-be
Mussolinis riding a wave of irrational public zeal.
Americans are STILL suboptimally-literate, ill-informed,
under-educated and easily misled ... though far less
likely to be farmhands. If Trump wins the popular vote
this may be the first time since the Founding that the
electors actually intervene in a serious manner. It
would cause chaos though of course, maybe even
some sort of coup.
We shall see.
As horrible as Trump is though, he's STILL preferable
to Mrs. Clinton. The march of ultraleft idiocy has gone
too far and Trump would send it crying home to mama.
Of course, add 25 years or so, and the right-wing idiocy
level will become objectionable once again ..... nobody
seems happy with the sensible center.
In another words, America is no more of a democracy than the UK.
Correct ... especially when it comes to electing
a president.
The legislative branches ... those representatives
are choosen by direct, simple, majority vote. No
one senator or congresscritter has as much
authority as the president however, so I suppose
it's "safe" to do a straight-up vote for them. John
McCain cannot order the armed forces to bomb
Iran no matter HOW much he'd like it to happen.
There are no "pure democracies" in the world. Even
the classical Athenian experiment with that didn't
last very long. Plato was correct when he called
democracy a "degenerate system" - it's is a very
bad idea to give the uninformed rabble direct
and detailed control.
Our respective "representative" systems are intended
to alleviate the potential problems of "pure" democracy ...
but I think they introduce new routes of abuse/corruption.
Also, since the invention of the instant opinion poll,
representative systems tend to manifest some of the
problems of "pure" democracy as politicians try to please
all the people all of the time.
Who has the right to say the majority of the population
isn't clever enough to vote ?
In our case it was the Founders themselves. They
were very clever men ... and I think honest about
their citizens and wise about human nature. The
more power vested in an individual, the more layers
of insulation required between him and Joe Citizen.
Now in the UK style of government the position of
the PM is not anything the citizens get to vote on
directly, if I understand correctly. They elect reps
from their favorite parties and the reps of the
majority party select a PM from their ranks. This
makes those party reps somewhat equivalent
to our "electors" ... an extra layer of indirection
between citizen and highest executive.
The majority MUST decide what happens, or it's not
a democracy.
As I pointed out, there ARE NO "democracies" ...
variants of "republics" instead.
Those people "inserting a layer of smarter people"
just THINK they're smarter.
In the 1780s "electors" really WOULD have been
choosen from the "smarter", better-educated,
subportion of the population. With a broader,
more worldly view and likely training in "liberal
arts" - including logic, philosophy and maybe
theology - when it came to running a country
properly, they would be the better choice.
In the 2000s ... um .... I still too often see where
Joe Citizen is lacking. Even worse it's become a
much "bigger world", a much more politically and
economically complicated world, since the 1700s.
Joe Citizen has not risen to the challenge. Even
the internet hasn't helped ... simply added a larger
volume of mis/dis-information.
Alas the "better" people you would want to be your
representatives, presidents and electors also have
fallen behind the proverbial curve. Statesmen are
few ... self-serving, self-absorbed, myopic pinheads
are far more common. There is little difference
now between "better" and the rabble and thus
bad decisions have increased.
Thinking about it all, clearly there IS NO "perfect"
system, no "perfect" form or shape of government.
Nothing even close to "perfect". We get a choice
between "horrible" and "not QUITE so horrible".
A large part of this problem is inescapable - it
is *people* - 8 billion constantly-mutating notions
of the way things ought to be. We are a species
that actually enjoys congitive dissonance and
believing six impossible things before breakfast.
So, until the Robot Overlords arrive, we're just stuck.
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 22:54:51 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
[snip]
Hindis here speak very clearly and use proper English, but leave no
spaces between the words. Easy to understand if you can prevent
yourself from laughing.
They run practically every "convenience store" in America
at this point, so we're well-exposed :-)
Same here. When possible I avoid those ones.
They seem to replace the 'gaps' with harder letter sounds,
"WeMustNowGoToTheMeeting" - at least to my ear. This,
combined with their native accents, can make it rather
difficult to understand them at times.
I have no problem understanding them, in fact those harder sounds make the words clearer.
Now if you want funny,
find a store clerk that has been living in our deep south
for a long time ... Hindglish with a slow drawl :-)
Deep South accents just make people sound stupid.
"Colour" -vs- "color" ? Americans are lazy too, we tend
to drop "useless" letters :-)
You're not lazy when it comes to eating!
We're hardly the only 'pudgy' country in
the world.
You're the country famous for it.
To some extent I think our culinary habits
are a reflection of the "great depression"
of the 1930s. There were a lot of skinny
kids then ... and not skinny by choice.
Once the food returned I think they started
making up for lost calories - 'fat' meant
'healthy', 'happy' and to some degree 'wealthy'.
There are also our not-THAT distant colonial
roots where people expended vast amounts
of energy in hard labor in rugged environments.
A 6000 kCal dinner wasn't actually excessive.
The recipies and traditions stuck ... even after
life became easier.
Look up ectomorph. Now explain to me why they
don't supersede everyone else.
When you choose your spouse, if an ectomorph is
available, you'd obviously pick one.
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:56:05 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
[bandwidth snip]
Iran no matter HOW much he'd like it to happen.
There are no "pure democracies" in the world. Even
the classical Athenian experiment with that didn't
last very long. Plato was correct when he called
democracy a "degenerate system" - it's is a very
bad idea to give the uninformed rabble direct
and detailed control.
What a stupid viewpoint.
You're basically saying "don't let other peoples' votes count
because they aren't as clever as me". Nobody has the right
to say that.
Our respective "representative" systems are intended
to alleviate the potential problems of "pure" democracy ...
but I think they introduce new routes of abuse/corruption.
Also, since the invention of the instant opinion poll,
representative systems tend to manifest some of the
problems of "pure" democracy as politicians try to please
all the people all of the time.
Who has the right to say the majority of the population
isn't clever enough to vote ?
In our case it was the Founders themselves. They
were very clever men ... and I think honest about
their citizens and wise about human nature. The
more power vested in an individual, the more layers
of insulation required between him and Joe Citizen.
Hmph! Founders indeed. You wrote a decent constitution,
then completely ignored it by amending it several times
Now in the UK style of government the position of
the PM is not anything the citizens get to vote on
directly, if I understand correctly. They elect reps
from their favorite parties and the reps of the
majority party select a PM from their ranks. This
makes those party reps somewhat equivalent
to our "electors" ... an extra layer of indirection
between citizen and highest executive.
Yip, a right farce. What's worse is the number of representatives
(MPs) is often nothing like the number of people that voted for that
party. For example UKIP got three times the number of votes as
SNP, yet SNP got fifty times more MPs!
The majority MUST decide what happens, or it's not
a democracy.
As I pointed out, there ARE NO "democracies" ...
variants of "republics" instead.
There should be.
Those people "inserting a layer of smarter people"
just THINK they're smarter.
In the 1780s "electors" really WOULD have been
choosen from the "smarter", better-educated,
subportion of the population. With a broader,
more worldly view and likely training in "liberal
arts" - including logic, philosophy and maybe
theology - when it came to running a country
properly, they would be the better choice.
In the 2000s ... um .... I still too often see where
Joe Citizen is lacking. Even worse it's become a
much "bigger world", a much more politically and
economically complicated world, since the 1700s.
Joe Citizen has not risen to the challenge. Even
the internet hasn't helped ... simply added a larger
volume of mis/dis-information.
Alas the "better" people you would want to be your
representatives, presidents and electors also have
fallen behind the proverbial curve. Statesmen are
few ... self-serving, self-absorbed, myopic pinheads
are far more common. There is little difference
now between "better" and the rabble and thus
bad decisions have increased.
Thinking about it all, clearly there IS NO "perfect"
system, no "perfect" form or shape of government.
Nothing even close to "perfect". We get a choice
between "horrible" and "not QUITE so horrible".
A large part of this problem is inescapable - it
is *people* - 8 billion constantly-mutating notions
of the way things ought to be. We are a species
that actually enjoys congitive dissonance and
believing six impossible things before breakfast.
So, until the Robot Overlords arrive, we're just stuck.
The "masses" must have more choice, it's that simple.
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:21:12 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:56:05 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
[bandwidth snip]
Iran no matter HOW much he'd like it to happen.
There are no "pure democracies" in the world. Even
the classical Athenian experiment with that didn't
last very long. Plato was correct when he called
democracy a "degenerate system" - it's is a very
bad idea to give the uninformed rabble direct
and detailed control.
What a stupid viewpoint.
No, it's the intellegent - and realistic - viewpoint.
You're basically saying "don't let other peoples' votes count
because they aren't as clever as me". Nobody has the right
to say that.
Our Founders said it ... and I think they were correct,
at least as far as electing presidents go. "Mob logic"
can be a terrible thing - and you don't want it when
deciding, or electing someone who can decide, to
push the big red button.
It's not always an issue of "smartness" either, it's
an issue of crowd behavior. There was a line in a
movie some years back ... "A person is smart ;
PEOPLE are dumb panicky dangerous animals".
We may not LIKE to believe this but it's always been
true (and exploited). Certain safeguards are necessary
and the more money, power and tangible force involved
in the equation the stronger the safeguards must be.
There are some kinds of people who should never be
allowed to become a US president even if 99.99% of
the voters absolutely LOVE the guy. "Democracy" ?
Nice idea in the abstract, but there are times to be
coldly practical.
The world has endured meglomaniacs, psychotics,
sociopaths and outright lunatics elevated to positions
of great power far too often. It was a very bad thing
pre-industrial and these days is a literal world-ending
threat.
Our respective "representative" systems are intended
to alleviate the potential problems of "pure" democracy ...
but I think they introduce new routes of abuse/corruption.
Also, since the invention of the instant opinion poll,
representative systems tend to manifest some of the
problems of "pure" democracy as politicians try to please
all the people all of the time.
Who has the right to say the majority of the population
isn't clever enough to vote ?
In our case it was the Founders themselves. They
were very clever men ... and I think honest about
their citizens and wise about human nature. The
more power vested in an individual, the more layers
of insulation required between him and Joe Citizen.
Hmph! Founders indeed. You wrote a decent constitution,
then completely ignored it by amending it several times
The amendments, the first 10 anyway, were part of
the deal. No constitition without explicitly spelling out
certain rights. I think that's the only thing that kept
the USA from becoming another Russia or another
Reich. Our 'leaders' labor endlessly to find ways of
reasoning around those enumerated rights - showing
us what the USA would have become if nobody had
bothered writing them down. The will to absolute
power is ALWAYS there.
Now in the UK style of government the position of
the PM is not anything the citizens get to vote on
directly, if I understand correctly. They elect reps
from their favorite parties and the reps of the
majority party select a PM from their ranks. This
makes those party reps somewhat equivalent
to our "electors" ... an extra layer of indirection
between citizen and highest executive.
Yip, a right farce. What's worse is the number of representatives
(MPs) is often nothing like the number of people that voted for that
party. For example UKIP got three times the number of votes as
SNP, yet SNP got fifty times more MPs!
Ok ... that's really weird ............
How do they justify that ? Size of represented area ?
Sheer number of voters per area ? Traditional
importance of area ? Nothing to do with area or
population ? Average penis dimensions ???
Those people "inserting a layer of smarter people"
just THINK they're smarter.
In the 1780s "electors" really WOULD have been
choosen from the "smarter", better-educated,
subportion of the population. With a broader,
more worldly view and likely training in "liberal
arts" - including logic, philosophy and maybe
theology - when it came to running a country
properly, they would be the better choice.
In the 2000s ... um .... I still too often see where
Joe Citizen is lacking. Even worse it's become a
much "bigger world", a much more politically and
economically complicated world, since the 1700s.
Joe Citizen has not risen to the challenge. Even
the internet hasn't helped ... simply added a larger
volume of mis/dis-information.
Alas the "better" people you would want to be your
representatives, presidents and electors also have
fallen behind the proverbial curve. Statesmen are
few ... self-serving, self-absorbed, myopic pinheads
are far more common. There is little difference
now between "better" and the rabble and thus
bad decisions have increased.
Thinking about it all, clearly there IS NO "perfect"
system, no "perfect" form or shape of government.
Nothing even close to "perfect". We get a choice
between "horrible" and "not QUITE so horrible".
A large part of this problem is inescapable - it
is *people* - 8 billion constantly-mutating notions
of the way things ought to be. We are a species
that actually enjoys congitive dissonance and
believing six impossible things before breakfast.
So, until the Robot Overlords arrive, we're just stuck.
The "masses" must have more choice, it's that simple.
I'd back more choice for *some* things ... "lifestyle
issues" and other minimally-dangerous individual-
centered items. *Dangerous* things however - big
money, military force, international relations - better
to leave things as they are.
Joe Citizen doesn't have the time nor inclination to
study the facts and details of almost anything the
State is doing. He doesn't have the resources to
do a good job of it even if he was so-inclined. He
cannot be a chemist and physicist and engineer
and biologist and ecologist and geologist and
economist and foreign-policy insider and .... well ...
if he voted correctly it would be by pure accident.
So instead he gets to vote for people who "seem
trustworthy" (often aren't), more of a "gut" reaction,
personality-appraisal - can be done with fewer
resources/info/training. Besides, all his "choices"
will have been vetted by the Big Money people,
not much difference between them.
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:27:40 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 22:54:51 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote:
[snip]
Hindis here speak very clearly and use proper English, but leave no
spaces between the words. Easy to understand if you can prevent
yourself from laughing.
They run practically every "convenience store" in America
at this point, so we're well-exposed :-)
Same here. When possible I avoid those ones.
Aww ... SOME aren't so bad ....... just make
sure to check the "Best If Sold By" dates on
whatever you purchase :-)
They seem to replace the 'gaps' with harder letter sounds,
"WeMustNowGoToTheMeeting" - at least to my ear. This,
combined with their native accents, can make it rather
difficult to understand them at times.
I have no problem understanding them, in fact those harder sounds make the words clearer.
Not to my ear ... though likely with more exposure
I could follow the cadence and rythm better.
Now if you want funny,
find a store clerk that has been living in our deep south
for a long time ... Hindglish with a slow drawl :-)
Deep South accents just make people sound stupid.
That's just to throw you off guard ... with every
smoothly drawn-out syllable they're plotting ways
to defile your teenaged daughters :-)
"Colour" -vs- "color" ? Americans are lazy too, we tend
to drop "useless" letters :-)
You're not lazy when it comes to eating!
We're hardly the only 'pudgy' country in
the world.
You're the country famous for it.
Greater volume of exported news/cultural
media than anywhere else ...
To some extent I think our culinary habits
are a reflection of the "great depression"
of the 1930s. There were a lot of skinny
kids then ... and not skinny by choice.
Once the food returned I think they started
making up for lost calories - 'fat' meant
'healthy', 'happy' and to some degree 'wealthy'.
There are also our not-THAT distant colonial
roots where people expended vast amounts
of energy in hard labor in rugged environments.
A 6000 kCal dinner wasn't actually excessive.
The recipies and traditions stuck ... even after
life became easier.
Look up ectomorph. Now explain to me why they
don't supersede everyone else.
Too fat for the desert and too skinny for Alaska ?
When you choose your spouse, if an ectomorph is
available, you'd obviously pick one.
Careful ... a lot of them inflate into huge pinatas
30 days after you say "I Do". Always check the
family photos :-)
On 2016-Jan-04 09:40, Mr. B1ack wrote:
Oh ... you seem well informed ... there's a Britishism
that eludes me - saying somebody is "in hospital" rather
than "in the hospital" or "in a hospital". Americans DO
say "in prison" however ...
Also "in college", "at home", and many other examples. This has been >discussed numerous times in this newsgroup, so it's probably in the AUE
FAQ. In non-American English, "in hospital" means that the person is a >patient, while "in the hospital" means at some specific hospital, not >necessarily as a patient. "Dr X is not in the hospital right now. Have
you tried phoning his practice?"
The general rule is that "in the X" is a reference to a specific X,
while "in X" is referring not to a place but to a state. If I say "My
nephew is at university" I mean that he is a student, but not
necessarily on campus right now. (And I haven't specified which
university.) If instead I say he is "at the university" I mean that he
is physically on the campus (and the definite article implies that we're >talking about one specific university, whose identity is established by >context), but he is not necessarily a student. He might, for example, be
a plumber who is there doing a repair.
American English also makes this distinction. OK, you say "college"
rather than "university", but that's a minor detail. In all cases the
use of the definite article means that we are speaking of a named
prison, college, hospital, university, etc., which the lack of the
definite article means that we are speaking of a state. "In prison" just >means "imprisoned", without saying where.
There's just one exception. For some reason AmE breaks this rule in the
case of "hospital".
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 55:00:09 |
| Calls: | 6,650 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,330,746 |
