On 3/17/2022 11:01 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 23:07:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> rOn Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:00:40 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/10/2022 11:26 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:njdk2hdupos5se1md...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>>> Many so-called "experts" cannot conceive of the concept of
>>>>>> "Republicans win".
>>>
>>>>> They broke when Queen Hillary was denied her god-given right to
>>>>> govern over us lesser subraces.
>>>
>>>> She may run again in 2024.
>>>
>>> Only in Donald Trump's wet dreams.
>>>
>> Actually, it was the voters of the United States of America that
>> would have given Hillary Clinton the right to be President of the
>> United States, except that members of a "lesser race" were
>> obstructed in getting to the polls.
>
> So speaks the last person (well, hopefully) who has /no idea at all/
> of how elections work.
>
> The real way, for President of the USA:
>
> the States select Electors, by popular vote
>
> the Electors select the President (and so the Vice-President, as the
> two are paired)
>
> No amount of additional popular votes would change the outcome;
> Hillary lost because she ignored how the election works, and decided
> the little States could be ignored.
>
> The supposed way:
>
> winner takes all
>
> Hillary did get the plurality (that is, more votes than anybody else,
> but not more than 50%). But that is not how such elections work.
>
> How they work is ... well, there are two ways, which may be combined:
>
> 1. You hold a Primary, which leaves exactly two candidates for the
> main event.
>
> 2. If neither candidate gets a /majority/ (over 50% of the vote), then
> a run-off is held.
>
> Note that case 2 could, in theory, occur even when there are only two
> candidates if write-ins are allowed. It would take a heck of a lot of
> write-ins, though.
>
> Under /no/ circumstances is a mere plurality enough. And even a
> majority of the popular vote does /not/ determine who becomes
> President of the United Staes of America.

You forgot about the independents such as Ross Perot who got Bill
Clinton elected by siphoning votes from George H. W. Bush.

Lynn

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 9:56:13 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 05:54:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >I am expressing a personal judgement about the aspect of NATO membership
> >that is most effective at preventing a country from being invaded and conquered
> >by Russia: being defended by the United States, which has a massive nuclear
> >arsenal in addition to conventional forces, as opposed to being defended by the
> >conventional forces of other European nations.
> >
> >I would have thought, though, that this judgement is non-controversial, as it
> >states a rather obvious fact.

> I'm pretty sure that a British or French nuclear weapon landing on his
> punkin haid woud ruin Putin's day just as thoroughly as an American
> one.

That's true, but there are other areas in which quantity matters.

And no doubt Putin is somewhat hard to find at the moment, and he
would be even harder to find were he in the process of attacking a
NATO country.

John Savard

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 10:01:38 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> Under /no/ circumstances is a mere plurality enough. And even a
> majority of the popular vote does /not/ determine who becomes
> President of the United Staes of America.

Since Hilary already _got_ a plurality, how does this argue against
voter suppression having been instrumental in her failing to get
the Electoral College victory as well?

John Savard

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 10:07:59 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com> wrote in
> news:j9h0rk...@mid.individual.net:
> > On 2022-03-17, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >> The pandemic, leading to mail-in ballots, made voter
> >> suppression almost impossible, leading to the so-called
> >> "stolen" election of 2020, in which Trump was finally booted
> >> out, impeachment having failed due to blatantly partisan
> >> behavior by Republicans in Congress.

> > You do realize that the Black share of the electorate in 2020
> > was *less* than it was in 2016? But why let mere facts
> > interfere with you arguments!

> ar·gu·ment
> /'ärgy?m?nt/
>
> 2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading
> others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
> "there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
>
> You misuse the word. Rather badly.
>
> fan·ta·sy
> /'fan(t)?se/
>
> 1. the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things
> that are impossible or improbable.
> "his research had moved into the realm of fantasy"

You are being unfair to Chris Buckley, who, after all, does
appear to have raised a valid point.

After all, meaning 1 of argument is presumably "a dispute",
and one of the disputants in an argument can certainly base
his position on fantasy rather than having rational arguments
to muster.

John Savard

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 12:47:38 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> The important thing to remember is that the novel, and the move,
> were comedic. Nitpicking over plausbility makes one look rather
> silly.

My vague memory was that Pinot Grand Fenwick, in a very good year, had
a special ingredient that powered their bomb. Perhaps, instead, this was
the fuel for The Mouse on the Moon?

John Savard

"Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote in
news:t100ej$j7p$1@dont-email.me:

> On 17/03/2022 13.47, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:t0vtm1$r4f$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 17/03/2022 01.07, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> The novel "The Mouse that Roared" had the Duchy of Grand
>>>> Fenwick come up with a bomb more powerful than the hydrogen
>>>> bomb.
>>>
>>> To quote from the back cover of the Bantam MMPB:
>>>
>>> This book is about ... absent-minded Dr. Kokintz, U.S.
>>> atomic scientist who invented the Quadium bomb, triggered
>>> by his landlady's hairpin. The bomb was captured for
>>> Duchess Gloriana XII by her expeditionary force of 20
>>> longbowmen who invaded the world's largest city under
>>> their flag where one head says "Yes" and one "No," and
>>> frightened America Civil Defense Workers who thought them
>>> men from Mars.
>>>
>>> So it was an American scientist, working in the U.S. who came
>>> up with the afore-mentioned bomb. It ended up in the Duchy's
>>> possession because they took it.
>>>
>>> It does seem improbable that everybody would behave themselves
>>> just because this bomb could destroy the world, but in those
>>> days we had the assumption that world leaders were rational.
>>>
>> I have never read the book (was it a novelation of the movie,
>> or was the movie based on it?), but I just watched the movie
>> last week, the premise was that most of the Duchy's income was
>> from their wine, and a US winery had come out with a cheap
>> imitation under a nearly trademark violating name, and protests
>> went unanswered. So, facing, bankrupty, they declared war on
>> the US, and sent their chainmail and longbow armed army to New
>> York City with the intent that they would surrender to the
>> first authorities they could find. Having lose a war with the
>> US, they would then be given lots and lots and lots of money to
>> help them rebuild. (WWII was still a fresh memory in 1959, so
>> it was - in a satirical sense - quite plausible.)
>
> Yeah, that's the same as the book.
>
>> The important thing to remember is that the novel, and the
>> move, were comedic. Nitpicking over plausbility makes one look
>> rather silly.
>
> I wasn't nitpicking, I was responding to Quadi's nit-pick (which
> I had deleted).

I wasn't calling you silly, I was calling Quaddie silly. Which is
redundant, of course.

> Hence the bit about "... but in those days ..."
>
While you are entirely correct, and that is a factor, world leaders
are, in the movie, portrayed as idiots, by and large. And while
that is a factor, a far bigger factor, I think, was the reuiblding
effortsi n Germany and Japan in the post-WWII era, which was
entering its second decade when the book was being written.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:950eae54-34c2-45c2-b15e-2e480b3b6a5en@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 12:47:38 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> The important thing to remember is that the novel, and the
>> move, were comedic. Nitpicking over plausbility makes one look
>> rather silly.
>
> My vague memory was that Pinot Grand Fenwick, in a very good
> year, had a special ingredient that powered their bomb. Perhaps,
> instead, this was the fuel for The Mouse on the Moon?
>
It is, indeed. That DVD should arrive today or tomorrow.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:bcd6d99e-e64d-479e-bdd5-de1ecc45ff0bn@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 10:07:59 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com> wrote in
>> news:j9h0rk...@mid.individual.net:
>> > On 2022-03-17, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >> The pandemic, leading to mail-in ballots, made voter
>> >> suppression almost impossible, leading to the so-called
>> >> "stolen" election of 2020, in which Trump was finally booted
>> >> out, impeachment having failed due to blatantly partisan
>> >> behavior by Republicans in Congress.
>
>> > You do realize that the Black share of the electorate in 2020
>> > was *less* than it was in 2016? But why let mere facts
>> > interfere with you arguments!
>
>> ar·gu·ment
>> /'ärgy?m?nt/
>>
>> 2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading
>> others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
>> "there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
>>
>> You misuse the word. Rather badly.
>>
>> fan·ta·sy
>> /'fan(t)?se/
>>
>> 1. the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially
>> things that are impossible or improbable.
>> "his research had moved into the realm of fantasy"
>
> You are being unfair to Chris Buckley, who, after all, does
> appear to have raised a valid point.

I do not quibble over his point. Only his use of the word
"argument" to describe what you post.
>
> After all, meaning 1 of argument is presumably "a dispute",
> and one of the disputants in an argument can certainly base
> his position on fantasy rather than having rational arguments
> to muster.
>
You offer no reasons for your insane revenge fantasies, and you
rarely, if ever, actually respond to posts pointing out how
ridiculous they are. So neither deifnition applies.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote in
news:t100k9$j7p$2@dont-email.me:

> On 17/03/2022 10.54, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 05:58:01 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 6:28:54 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 23:07:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But then, as a second precautionary measure, I think I would
>>>>> have to partition the United States of America into blue
>>>>> states and red states... and give the blue states the
>>>>> nuclear capability.
>>>
>>>> Which makes you betterr than Putin because?
>>>
>>> Oh, please. Ensuring the survival of liberty is not the same
>>> as attempting to exterminate freedom wherever it exists in the
>>> world. Some might even say it's the exact opposite.
>>
>> The trouble is that you wouldn't recognize "liberty" if it beat
>> you over the head with a durium cluebat. Your idea of
>> "liberty" seems to be pretty much "do what Quadi says or die".
>
> Kind of like the way that the Pilgrims came here from England in
> search of religious freedom. Which, as I understand it, meant
> "the freedom to persecute those who don't believe as we do."
>
Which is to say, just like the old country.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 1:15:53 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/17/2022 1:17 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 11:56:36 AM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> After all, the USA does not really
> >> have a dog in protecting central Europe from the Russians.
> >
> > Fine. Just protect central Europe from the Russians long enough for them
> > to pay for their own strategic nuclear deterrent, out of their own pockets,
> > as big and powerful as the one the United States has to protect its own soil.
> >
> > And on the diplomatic front, do what's needed to get the non-proliferation
> > treaty out of the way.

> I am continuously amazed that you think that the Russians will do
> ANYTHING that is not in their own best interests.

I'm not sure how that comment applies to my post.

I was talking about America, not Russia, doing something: protecting Europe
for a short period of time, until Europe could defend itself as well as the United
States was able to defend it.

As far as Russia doing something that isn't in its best interests - nowhere am
I expecting it to do that. I'm expecting it not to invade Lithuania, say, if the result
of invading Lithuania would be that Lithuanian missiles would destroy Russia 50
times over. Woudn't that be in Russia's best interest?

John Savard

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 1:02:38 PM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

> Kind of like the way that the Pilgrims came here from England in search
> of religious freedom. Which, as I understand it, meant "the freedom to
> persecute those who don't believe as we do."

I wonder if Puritan canned stew, if it is exported to the UK, is rebranded
there?

John Savard

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 6:12:16 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:950eae54-34c2-45c2...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 12:47:38 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> > Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >
> >> The important thing to remember is that the novel, and the
> >> move, were comedic. Nitpicking over plausbility makes one look
> >> rather silly.
> >
> > My vague memory was that Pinot Grand Fenwick, in a very good
> > year, had a special ingredient that powered their bomb. Perhaps,
> > instead, this was the fuel for The Mouse on the Moon?
> >
> It is, indeed. That DVD should arrive today or tomorrow.

2005 wants its overdue dvds back. It's available on Amazon Prime TV
for $3.99

Pt

On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 9:54:06 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:

> Russia doesn't appear to be doing all /that/ well in the Ukraine,
> although it I suspect that, if they went to full mobilization, they
> would eventually wear them down. They have, after all, a much larger
> population. Might take a few years, though.
>
> But we shall see what we shall see.

At the moment, apparently we're seeing Russia hire foreign
mercenaries. Which is odd, as it has people but not money.

John Savard

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 9:55:23 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:t100k9$j7p$2...@dont-email.me:
> > On 17/03/2022 10.54, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 05:58:01 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> >> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 6:28:54 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 23:07:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> >>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> But then, as a second precautionary measure, I think I would
> >>>>> have to partition the United States of America into blue
> >>>>> states and red states... and give the blue states the
> >>>>> nuclear capability.
> >>>
> >>>> Which makes you betterr than Putin because?
> >>>
> >>> Oh, please. Ensuring the survival of liberty is not the same
> >>> as attempting to exterminate freedom wherever it exists in the
> >>> world. Some might even say it's the exact opposite.
> >>
> >> The trouble is that you wouldn't recognize "liberty" if it beat
> >> you over the head with a durium cluebat. Your idea of
> >> "liberty" seems to be pretty much "do what Quadi says or die".
> >
> > Kind of like the way that the Pilgrims came here from England in
> > search of religious freedom. Which, as I understand it, meant
> > "the freedom to persecute those who don't believe as we do."
> >
> Which is to say, just like the old country.

True enough. They first tried Holland, but found the Dutch too
tolerant for their tastes. Once they got to America, there was
The 'Merrymount' affair.

Pt

On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 7:11:08 AM UTC-7, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> > On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> >> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about taking
> >> anything for it ?

> > If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected in November of 2024,
> > my homeland, Canada, will be in essentially the same position as the Ukraine
> > just prior to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from his most recent
> > bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is difficult to take it seriously that he sees
> > Russia as any kind of threat.

> Assuming Trump is indeed in Russia's pocket, why did he berate
> Germany (and Merkel personally) for not doing more for its defense?
> Would it be in Russia's interest to have a well-armed Germany?
>
> (Scholz, Merkel's successor, has now agreed to do what Merkel would
> not do for Trump, by the way.)

That's a good question.

But it does have an answer:

a) If Trump is a Russian asset, it's in Russia's interest that not everyone
knows it; he has to at least *look* like he's looking out for America's
interests, not Russia's.

b) It isn't in Russia's interests for Germany to become well-armed. However,
it _would_ be in Russia's interests for America to withdraw from NATO, so
that the countries of Europe would lose the protection of American nuclear
weapons.

If one views Trump's berating of Merkel as setting up an excuse to do just
that, there is no contradiction between that and Trump advancing Russia's
interests.

This also can address another issue.

I've been pessimistic about the consequences of the events in Ukraine.

I think the U.S. should have, on its own, provided Ukraine with the
near equivalent of Article 5 protection... since 2008 preferaly, and
just before Russia invaded at the least.

Since it didn't, Russia had the opportunity to threaten the U.S.
with nuclear attack if it interfered... and so it didn't.

Latvia is as far away from the U.S. as Ukraine, and it was also formerly
part of the Soviet Union. So events in Ukraine do raise... some room for
doubt as to whether or not NATO commitments will be fully honored in
the event of a Russian invasion of this NATO member.

It doesn't even really matter if I'm wrong, because we're doomed if
a global thermonuclear war starts too, not just if Putin conquers the
world.

But the situation is not binary. Putin may indeed be too cautious to invade
a NATO member under current circumstances.

Well, then, we're OK, right?

Oh, dear, no.

The fact that Ukraine fell under Biden's watch will be emotionally unappealing
to Americans, causing at least a slight fall in his popularity, and remember how
close the 2016 and 2020 elections were?

I mean, Donald Trump just recently stated that if he were President, Putin
wouldn't have invaded, because Putin would know that Trump doesn't fool
around. (Ivana might tell you differently, of course.) Of course that remark
seems ludicrous to sensible people, but Trump's supporters have lapped
up more unbelievable things he has said.

So first the Ukraine war gets Trump re-elected, and _then_ Putin invades
Latvia. Maybe Trump nukes France and the UK to get that little problem out
of Putin's way? No, _those_ orders likely would not be obeyed, I should hope.

John Savard

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 10:26:48 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> I mean, Donald Trump just recently stated that if he were President, Putin
> wouldn't have invaded, because Putin would know that Trump doesn't fool
> around. (Ivana might tell you differently, of course.) Of course that remark
> seems ludicrous to sensible people, but Trump's supporters have lapped
> up more unbelievable things he has said.

Oh, and I do have a source for that:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-wouldnt-have-happened-on-my-watch

John Savard

On 2022-03-09 7:11 a.m., Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about taking
>>> anything for it ?
>>
>> If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected in November of 2024,
>> my homeland, Canada, will be in essentially the same position as the Ukraine
>> just prior to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from his most recent
>> bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is difficult to take it seriously that he sees
>> Russia as any kind of threat.
>
> Assuming Trump is indeed in Russia's pocket, why did he berate
> Germany (and Merkel personally) for not doing more for its defense?
> Would it be in Russia's interest to have a well-armed Germany?

It would be an excellent trade off for a NATO alienated from the United
States and vice versa. Trump threatening not to defend NATO members if
they didn't all comply with his demands undermined their confidence in
the alliance. Beside Trump's diplomatic ineptitude meant he wouldn't be
able to get people to comply anyway.

>
> (Scholz, Merkel's successor, has now agreed to do what Merkel would
> not do for Trump, by the way.)

On 17/03/2022 23.03, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 6:12:16 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:950eae54-34c2-45c2...@googlegroups.com:

>>> My vague memory was that Pinot Grand Fenwick, in a very good
>>> year, had a special ingredient that powered their bomb. Perhaps,
>>> instead, this was the fuel for The Mouse on the Moon?
>>>
>> It is, indeed. That DVD should arrive today or tomorrow.
>
> 2005 wants its overdue dvds back. It's available on Amazon Prime TV
> for $3.99

Watch it once for four bucks versus own it for twelve doesn't seem
to make sense.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 9:02:24 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 17/03/2022 23.03, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 6:12:16 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> >> news:950eae54-34c2-45c2...@googlegroups.com:
> >>> My vague memory was that Pinot Grand Fenwick, in a very good
> >>> year, had a special ingredient that powered their bomb. Perhaps,
> >>> instead, this was the fuel for The Mouse on the Moon?
> >>>
> >> It is, indeed. That DVD should arrive today or tomorrow.
> >
> > 2005 wants its overdue dvds back. It's available on Amazon Prime TV
> > for $3.99
> Watch it once for four bucks versus own it for twelve doesn't seem
> to make sense.

How many times do you think you'll watch it, in your life?

Some movies are worth getting in the best permanent format
possible (I'm looking at purchasing LOTR for the 3rd time, now that
the Extended Edition is available in 4K, and has been properly color
balanced).

The Mouse that Roared is a cheap and cheerful comedy, intended as
pretty much disposable entertainment, and certainly not made with the
thought that ordinary people would ever want to own a copy.

I look at the thousands of SF books lining my family room (and other
parts of the house), and wonder if I'll ever re-read most of them. ...and
if not, why do I have them? I get a warm feeling of nostalgia, and a bit
of pride when I see them, or when people visit and are impressed.
Very occasionally I'll pull one down and re-read it, but that isn't often.

pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:502f0386-9134-491b-ab74-1f4cde497556n@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 6:12:16 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:950eae54-34c2-45c2...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 12:47:38 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
>> > Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >
>> >> The important thing to remember is that the novel, and the
>> >> move, were comedic. Nitpicking over plausbility makes one
>> >> look rather silly.
>> >
>> > My vague memory was that Pinot Grand Fenwick, in a very good
>> > year, had a special ingredient that powered their bomb.
>> > Perhaps, instead, this was the fuel for The Mouse on the
>> > Moon?
>> >
>> It is, indeed. That DVD should arrive today or tomorrow.
>
> 2005 wants its overdue dvds back. It's available on Amazon Prime
> TV for $3.99
>
I'm happy for you. I don't rent videos, and I'm not interested in
"buying" something that relies on Amazon continue to make it
available. I learned that lesson with Barnes & Nobile epubs.

(Aisde from any issues with crappy internet on streaming services, of
course.)

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:aaf1c868-b4e6-4abe-80ed-678d3a935fe6n@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 9:02:24 AM UTC-4, Michael F.
> Stemper wrote:
>> On 17/03/2022 23.03, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 6:12:16 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>> > Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> >> news:950eae54-34c2-45c2...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>> My vague memory was that Pinot Grand Fenwick, in a very
>> >>> good year, had a special ingredient that powered their
>> >>> bomb. Perhaps, instead, this was the fuel for The Mouse on
>> >>> the Moon?
>> >>>
>> >> It is, indeed. That DVD should arrive today or tomorrow.
>> >
>> > 2005 wants its overdue dvds back. It's available on Amazon
>> > Prime TV for $3.99
>> Watch it once for four bucks versus own it for twelve doesn't
>> seem to make sense.
>
> How many times do you think you'll watch it, in your life?

Can you loan out a streaming "purchase" to a friend? Or several
friends?
>
> Some movies are worth getting in the best permanent format
> possible (I'm looking at purchasing LOTR for the 3rd time, now
> that the Extended Edition is available in 4K, and has been
> properly color balanced).
>
> The Mouse that Roared is a cheap and cheerful comedy, intended
> as pretty much disposable entertainment, and certainly not made
> with the thought that ordinary people would ever want to own a
> copy.

In 1959, *no* movies where made with the thought that ordinary
people would ever been *allowed* to own a copy, dumbass.
>
> I look at the thousands of SF books lining my family room (and
> other parts of the house), and wonder if I'll ever re-read most
> of them. ...and if not, why do I have them? I get a warm
> feeling of nostalgia, and a bit of pride when I see them, or
> when people visit and are impressed. Very occasionally I'll pull
> one down and re-read it, but that isn't often.
>
So you're a hypocrite?

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 9:02:24 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> On 17/03/2022 23.03, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 6:12:16 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> >> news:950eae54-34c2-45c2...@googlegroups.com:
>> >>> My vague memory was that Pinot Grand Fenwick, in a very good
>> >>> year, had a special ingredient that powered their bomb. Perhaps,
>> >>> instead, this was the fuel for The Mouse on the Moon?
>> >>>
>> >> It is, indeed. That DVD should arrive today or tomorrow.
>> >
>> > 2005 wants its overdue dvds back. It's available on Amazon Prime TV
>> > for $3.99
>> Watch it once for four bucks versus own it for twelve doesn't seem
>> to make sense.
>
>How many times do you think you'll watch it, in your life?
>
>Some movies are worth getting in the best permanent format
>possible (I'm looking at purchasing LOTR for the 3rd time, now that
>the Extended Edition is available in 4K, and has been properly color
>balanced).

Hear! Hear!

For me, it was _The Final Countdown_, first on a VHS recorded
from ABC in the early 80's, eventually the small company
"Pacific Family Entertainment" got the rights to produce a
DVD. Later, a Blu-ray was produced (with a nice 3-d case)
and finally a 4K Blu-ray. Watching the F-14's dogfight
with the T-6s (in Zero livery) on a 65" OLED 4k screen
and a good sound system is awesome.

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:m9a93hhodflq5f6eafe1v5u1r89lbrunle@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 07:01:50 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 9:02:24 AM UTC-4, Michael F.
>>Stemper wrote:
>>> On 17/03/2022 23.03, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 6:12:16 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>>> > Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>> >> news:950eae54-34c2-45c2...@googlegroups.com:
>>> >>> My vague memory was that Pinot Grand Fenwick, in a very
>>> >>> good year, had a special ingredient that powered their
>>> >>> bomb. Perhaps, instead, this was the fuel for The Mouse on
>>> >>> the Moon?
>>> >>>
>>> >> It is, indeed. That DVD should arrive today or tomorrow.
>>> >
>>> > 2005 wants its overdue dvds back. It's available on Amazon
>>> > Prime TV for $3.99
>>> Watch it once for four bucks versus own it for twelve doesn't
>>> seem to make sense.
>>
>>How many times do you think you'll watch it, in your life?
>
> A valid point, and yet it must be kept in mind that, just
> because it can be rented /today/ does not mean it will be
> available /tomorrow/. Or next month. Or next year.
>
> Most DVDs last a long long time, when properly stored. The
> exceptions appear to be mostly manufacturing defects, such as
> bit rot, the secret code on the rim rubbing off (as opposed to
> being permanently applied, so it can't rub off), or second-layer
> problems. Or use of an "unknown opcode" -- but the Scenes Menu
> can usually get you past that, and a newer player may well
> recognize the opcode.

Or cheaply made DVD-Rs with pirated content, but I do try to avoid
those.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:bma93hl063kkrhv9lit027fo47rdbovotd@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 21:07:44 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 9:54:06 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Russia doesn't appear to be doing all /that/ well in the
>>> Ukraine, although it I suspect that, if they went to full
>>> mobilization, they would eventually wear them down. They have,
>>> after all, a much larger population. Might take a few years,
>>> though.
>>>
>>> But we shall see what we shall see.
>>
>>At the moment, apparently we're seeing Russia hire foreign
>>mercenaries. Which is odd, as it has people but not money.
>
> From what I've seen, they are jihadis from Syria.
>
> Which is even stranger, given Russia's history in Afghanistan
> and other Muslim areas. Not to mention their Friend & Ally's
> treatment of the Muslim Uighurs.

The Syrians are long standing allies of the Russians.

There's more than one side in Syria, you know. (In fact, there's
more than two.)
>
> But perhaps the opportunity to slaughter Christians is very
> attractive to otherwise-unemployed jihadis.

Or perhaps they are, in fact, mercenaries. Not all sides in Syria
are particularly religious at all.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 11:39:32 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 14:19:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 3/17/2022 11:01 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 23:07:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> >> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>> rOn Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:00:40 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> >>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/10/2022 11:26 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:njdk2hdupos5se1md...@4ax.com:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Many so-called "experts" cannot conceive of the concept of
> >>>>>>> "Republicans win".
> >>>>
> >>>>>> They broke when Queen Hillary was denied her god-given right to
> >>>>>> govern over us lesser subraces.
> >>>>
> >>>>> She may run again in 2024.
> >>>>
> >>>> Only in Donald Trump's wet dreams.
> >>>>
> >>> Actually, it was the voters of the United States of America that
> >>> would have given Hillary Clinton the right to be President of the
> >>> United States, except that members of a "lesser race" were
> >>> obstructed in getting to the polls.
> >>
> >> So speaks the last person (well, hopefully) who has /no idea at all/
> >> of how elections work.
> >>
> >> The real way, for President of the USA:
> >>
> >> the States select Electors, by popular vote
> >>
> >> the Electors select the President (and so the Vice-President, as the
> >> two are paired)
> >>
> >> No amount of additional popular votes would change the outcome;
> >> Hillary lost because she ignored how the election works, and decided
> >> the little States could be ignored.
> >>
> >> The supposed way:
> >>
> >> winner takes all
> >>
> >> Hillary did get the plurality (that is, more votes than anybody else,
> >> but not more than 50%). But that is not how such elections work.
> >>
> >> How they work is ... well, there are two ways, which may be combined:
> >>
> >> 1. You hold a Primary, which leaves exactly two candidates for the
> >> main event.
> >>
> >> 2. If neither candidate gets a /majority/ (over 50% of the vote), then
> >> a run-off is held.
> >>
> >> Note that case 2 could, in theory, occur even when there are only two
> >> candidates if write-ins are allowed. It would take a heck of a lot of
> >> write-ins, though.
> >>
> >> Under /no/ circumstances is a mere plurality enough. And even a
> >> majority of the popular vote does /not/ determine who becomes
> >> President of the United Staes of America.
> >
> >You forgot about the independents such as Ross Perot who got Bill
> >Clinton elected by siphoning votes from George H. W. Bush.
> Clinton was elected by getting a majority of votes in the Electoral
> College.
>
> The popular vote had nothing to do with it.
>
> Unless, of course, those votes would have flipped a lot of Electoral
> Votes.

Not to mention that polls showed Clinton winning when Perot dropped out of the race in mid-summer. Clinton got a huge bounce from his convention, Bush basically none.

Bush ran a really bad campaign, unfocused and negative. That was not enough to overcome the recent bad economic times, even with a revival under way. It is very difficult for an incumbent in a democracy to survive a recession. Just ask Disraeli.

William Hyde