* Peter T. Daniels:

> Yesterday was very sad indeed. "I've never seen Citizen Kane." Is that
> really necessary, to know that Xanadu was involved? She's probably
> never seen GwtW either, but wouldn't she recognize Scarlett O'Hara,
> Rhett Butler, or even Tara?
>
> How many of today's generations have never seen the classic films --
> especially the ones that aren't in color?

I've never seen Citizen Kane, nor did I remember clearly about Xanadu,
but I came up with the answer because it's a news-related film.

Not even guessing anything is quite bad, but I might freeze under
stress, too.

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

* Tony Cooper:

> On Fri, 6 May 2022 12:48:34 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 10:44:32 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>>* Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 6:05:00 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But Mattea knew Thomas Dewey and Antietam. Both of those are too deep
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dewey Defeats Truman" should be well enough known that the dates
>>>>> that were given would suffice
>>>>
>>>>Why would that be well known more than 50 years later?
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't it? It comes up every time there's a US election on the
>>> horizon where the polls indicate someone is a sure thing. There'll be
>>> an article about previous upsets and not counting the chickens before
>>> they're hatched. This photo will accompany the article:
>>>
>>> https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fitsnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F11%2Fdewey-defeats-truman.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
>>
>>I see.
>>
>>I'm following US presidential elections about as closely, I think, as
>>any foreigner can be expected, sometimes closer, at least since 2000,
>>and using mostly US sources, but I wasn't aware of it. So I guess it's
>>one of those things that Americans can be expected to know, but not
>>foreigners. So I stick with my opinion that Mattea is deeper into it
>>than is reasonable to expect from a non-American.
>
> I don't watch "Jeopardy", but I know that Mattea Roach has been a
> contestant on the show. I would not think someone who qualifies as a
> contestant for "Jeopardy" is an average Canadian as far as knowledge
> of worldwide events goes.

> There is an audition process to get on the show, and I would assume
> some ability to answer questions of a broader nature than Canadian
> history and events would be required to get through that process.

You're framing this wrong. I'm not at all talking about "worldwide"
events that are "broader than Canadian" knowledge. When it comes to
important facts about e.g. European history and geography, Americans and
Canadians aren't in a substantially different position.

What I was talking about is the many questions that are about things
*not* broader than American in importance.

It depends on the subject matter. When it comes to literature, a large
part of the questions are about English-language works, but most people
don't limit themselves to books from their own country when there's no
substantial language barrier. So it's clear to me that Mattea has not
nearly as much of a handicap in that area as I have, for not having
grown up in English. So in that case it's not about being a foreigner.

But it is when it comes to things like details of American history with
no impact outside of the country.

> I would also assume that any contestant that does get accepted would
> "bone up" on a wide variety of subjects in order to continue through
> the rounds. Ms Roach has said she "grew up watching Jeopardy", so she
> would know that the questions would include American events.
>
> It's not so much American vs foreigner, but someone who has prepared
> for questions vs someone who has not.

A typical candidate already had a broad general knowledge by being able
to retain more than ordinary people throughout their life, whether from
school learning, books read or TV watched. However, the details of that
depend on some factors like in what country the schooling happened and
the particular interests of the person. Then such a person would brush
up on some knowledge that is typical trivia contest fare, especially in
areas where they are weak, e.g. for lack of interest.

Someone who started out with a poor general knowledge and wants to catch
up just by rote learning must be exceptionally good at memorizing to
compete with that first type of person.

Someone preparing for Jeopardy has to take into account that it is an
American show and should beef up their knowledge of US-specific things.
For example, it's advisable to learn all the US presidents with their
number - not knowledge of "worldwide" importance (that you number your
presidents at all is a unique quirk.)

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

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 9:29:01 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
>> On 5/5/2022 11:41 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> Ruud Harmsen:
>>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>>>>>>>> They were also very fond of Locke. Mattea would know.
>>>>>>> Incomprehensible, irrelevant and uncalled for reaction. Who
>>>>>>> is Locke? Who is Mattea?
>>>>>> If you don't even know who Locke is (or Berkeley or Hobbes),
>>>>>> you won't win in Jeopardy against Mattea Roach, who's currently
>>>>>> on a winning streak, one of the biggest in history, again
>>>>>> (there were two of those quite recently).
>>>>> Last night Ken all but apologized for the "gimme" Final
>>>>> Question, using the excuse that the questions were written months
>>>>> ago and used randomly. Would that have prevented them from
>>>>> removing one that consisted of nothing but recognizing the second
>>>>> line of "O Canada"?
>>
>>>> Any intervention that takes the candidates into account introduces
>>>> subjectivity and thus unfairness.
>>
>>> There have been an awful lot of questions in the last few weeks
>>> pertaining specifically to Canada. Someone's thumb seems to be on the
>>> scale.
>>
>> Alex Trebek used to make sure there were questions about Canada in the
>> mix (embarrassingly few of them got more than blank looks). They may do
>> this in memory of him.
>
> Did he ensure there would be Midwest questions when a Chicago
> candidate was on?

The claim was that Canadian questions were included at all times, not
when Canadian candidates are on, which would be skewing the results.

It's reasonable to have some Canadian contents when Canadians are
allowed to enter, while being disadvantaged in many other questions.
IIRC, before Mattea, no Canadian had managed to win 5 times.

--
If men got pregnant, you could get an abortion at an ATM.
-- Selina Mayer, VEEP

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 10:44:33 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 6:05:00 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

>>>> I've read the name "Antietam" before, but didn't know the pronunciation,
>>>> so couldn't identify it as a rhyme of "beat 'em" (I gave it four
>>>> syllables in my mind).
>>> Oh, you're so German.
>>
>> What makes you say that? I decided *not* to read the "tie" as in German,
>> but that's what you do, actually.
>
> Presumably it's Algonquian.
>
> How would that name be read if it were German?

[anti:tam]

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

On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> Yesterday was very sad indeed. "I've never seen Citizen Kane." Is that
>> really necessary, to know that Xanadu was involved? She's probably
>> never seen GwtW either, but wouldn't she recognize Scarlett O'Hara,
>> Rhett Butler, or even Tara?
>>
>> How many of today's generations have never seen the classic films --
>> especially the ones that aren't in color?
>
>I've never seen Citizen Kane, nor did I remember clearly about Xanadu,

So never did you your stately pleasure domes decree?

>but I came up with the answer because it's a news-related film.
>
>Not even guessing anything is quite bad, but I might freeze under
>stress, too.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:07:31 PM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 4 May 2022 17:29:35 -0400: Quinn C
> >But to answer your question, they remain MPs when they become ministers.
> >
> >This is also allowed in Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
> >Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. In Austria, it's legal, but they resign
> >as MPs by convention.
> >
> >The dual function is forbidden in Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, France,
> >the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden.
> Not really forbidden in NL, because during a formation (goverment
> forming), when the cabinet is demissionary as we call it (sent away,
> but still handling what must be handled), they do have the dual
> function. It lead to strange situation, like people voting about their
> own fate.

That's called a "caretaker" cabinet in Canada. They are expected to take care
of needed housekeeping, but not to make new policies or announce projects.

> >In Ireland, ministers are required to be MPs.

> Strange, very strange.

Not strange to me. In Canada, cabinet ministers are nearly always MPs,
though it is not mandatory .Very rarely, a non-MP is named to the cabinet,
usually a prominent person. If there is no general election in sight, another
MP in a "safe" seat will usually resign to allow the newcomer to win the seat
in a byelection so that he can be accountable in Question Period.

The MP who gave up the seat is usually rewarded, perhaps with a Senate
appointment or an ambassadorship in a friendly country.

bill

Ken Blake speculated:
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> Yesterday was very sad indeed. "I've never seen Citizen Kane." Is that
>>> really necessary, to know that Xanadu was involved? She's probably
>>> never seen GwtW either, but wouldn't she recognize Scarlett O'Hara,
>>> Rhett Butler, or even Tara?
>>>
>>> How many of today's generations have never seen the classic films --
>>> especially the ones that aren't in color?
>>
>> I've never seen Citizen Kane, nor did I remember clearly about Xanadu,
>
>
> So never did you your stately pleasure domes decree?
>

Perhaps his stately pleasure preferred to decree dojos or bath houses.
Or both.

/dps

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

Sam Plusnet pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
> On 06-May-22 15:33, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> Do the presenters of quiz shows normally have much input into the
>> questions? (I was under the impression they didn't, but ICBW.)
>
> It might depend on how important they seem to the show's success.

I would expect that Trebek got a chance to do a quick review of new
items in the question pool, and to give feedback to the writers. He
may also have suggested topics to cover.

I'd like to more about the judges who rule on responses. Are they from
the writer team, or a separate set of folken with their own grasp of
the knowledge base?

/dps

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl

On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 12:48:34 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 10:44:32 -0400, Quinn C
>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>* Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 6:05:00 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> But Mattea knew Thomas Dewey and Antietam. Both of those are too deep
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dewey Defeats Truman" should be well enough known that the dates
>>>>>> that were given would suffice
>>>>>
>>>>>Why would that be well known more than 50 years later?
>>>>
>>>> Why shouldn't it? It comes up every time there's a US election on the
>>>> horizon where the polls indicate someone is a sure thing. There'll be
>>>> an article about previous upsets and not counting the chickens before
>>>> they're hatched. This photo will accompany the article:
>>>>
>>>> https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fitsnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F11%2Fdewey-defeats-truman.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
>>>
>>>I see.
>>>
>>>I'm following US presidential elections about as closely, I think, as
>>>any foreigner can be expected, sometimes closer, at least since 2000,
>>>and using mostly US sources, but I wasn't aware of it. So I guess it's
>>>one of those things that Americans can be expected to know, but not
>>>foreigners. So I stick with my opinion that Mattea is deeper into it
>>>than is reasonable to expect from a non-American.
>>
>> I don't watch "Jeopardy", but I know that Mattea Roach has been a
>> contestant on the show. I would not think someone who qualifies as a
>> contestant for "Jeopardy" is an average Canadian as far as knowledge
>> of worldwide events goes.
>
>> There is an audition process to get on the show, and I would assume
>> some ability to answer questions of a broader nature than Canadian
>> history and events would be required to get through that process.
>
>You're framing this wrong.

Evidently, since I am not thinking about this the same way that you
are thinking about this, I am "wrong". Interesting.

> I'm not at all talking about "worldwide"
>events that are "broader than Canadian" knowledge. When it comes to
>important facts about e.g. European history and geography, Americans and
>Canadians aren't in a substantially different position.
>
>What I was talking about is the many questions that are about things
>*not* broader than American in importance.
>
>It depends on the subject matter. When it comes to literature, a large
>part of the questions are about English-language works, but most people
>don't limit themselves to books from their own country when there's no
>substantial language barrier. So it's clear to me that Mattea has not
>nearly as much of a handicap in that area as I have, for not having
>grown up in English. So in that case it's not about being a foreigner.
>
>But it is when it comes to things like details of American history with
>no impact outside of the country.
>
>> I would also assume that any contestant that does get accepted would
>> "bone up" on a wide variety of subjects in order to continue through
>> the rounds. Ms Roach has said she "grew up watching Jeopardy", so she
>> would know that the questions would include American events.
>>
>> It's not so much American vs foreigner, but someone who has prepared
>> for questions vs someone who has not.
>
>A typical candidate already had a broad general knowledge by being able
>to retain more than ordinary people throughout their life, whether from
>school learning, books read or TV watched. However, the details of that
>depend on some factors like in what country the schooling happened and
>the particular interests of the person. Then such a person would brush
>up on some knowledge that is typical trivia contest fare, especially in
>areas where they are weak, e.g. for lack of interest.
>
>Someone who started out with a poor general knowledge and wants to catch
>up just by rote learning must be exceptionally good at memorizing to
>compete with that first type of person.
>
>Someone preparing for Jeopardy has to take into account that it is an
>American show and should beef up their knowledge of US-specific things.
>For example, it's advisable to learn all the US presidents with their
>number - not knowledge of "worldwide" importance (that you number your
>presidents at all is a unique quirk.)

Unique quirk? Scanning a list of kings and queens numbering seems
quite prevalent. Only the sequence differs.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

* Tony Cooper:

> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 12:48:34 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 10:44:32 -0400, Quinn C
>>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>* Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 6:05:00 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> But Mattea knew Thomas Dewey and Antietam. Both of those are too deep
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Dewey Defeats Truman" should be well enough known that the dates
>>>>>>> that were given would suffice
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why would that be well known more than 50 years later?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why shouldn't it? It comes up every time there's a US election on the
>>>>> horizon where the polls indicate someone is a sure thing. There'll be
>>>>> an article about previous upsets and not counting the chickens before
>>>>> they're hatched. This photo will accompany the article:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fitsnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F11%2Fdewey-defeats-truman.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
>>>>
>>>>I see.
>>>>
>>>>I'm following US presidential elections about as closely, I think, as
>>>>any foreigner can be expected, sometimes closer, at least since 2000,
>>>>and using mostly US sources, but I wasn't aware of it. So I guess it's
>>>>one of those things that Americans can be expected to know, but not
>>>>foreigners. So I stick with my opinion that Mattea is deeper into it
>>>>than is reasonable to expect from a non-American.
>>>
>>> I don't watch "Jeopardy", but I know that Mattea Roach has been a
>>> contestant on the show. I would not think someone who qualifies as a
>>> contestant for "Jeopardy" is an average Canadian as far as knowledge
>>> of worldwide events goes.
>>
>>> There is an audition process to get on the show, and I would assume
>>> some ability to answer questions of a broader nature than Canadian
>>> history and events would be required to get through that process.
>>
>>You're framing this wrong.
>
> Evidently, since I am not thinking about this the same way that you
> are thinking about this, I am "wrong". Interesting.

You were wrong, because you made it about "Canadian vs worldwide", when
the much more prevalent opposition in Jeopardy is "American vs.
worldwide".

The two prevalent types of questions that I can't answer in Jeopardy are
a) from subjects that I'm not well-versed in and b) questions that are
very US-specific.

>>Someone preparing for Jeopardy has to take into account that it is an
>>American show and should beef up their knowledge of US-specific things.
>>For example, it's advisable to learn all the US presidents with their
>>number - not knowledge of "worldwide" importance (that you number your
>>presidents at all is a unique quirk.)
>
> Unique quirk? Scanning a list of kings and queens numbering seems
> quite prevalent. Only the sequence differs.

There is no 16th king of England, and James Monroe wasn't James II.
Quite different systems.

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

* Ken Blake:

> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> Yesterday was very sad indeed. "I've never seen Citizen Kane." Is that
>>> really necessary, to know that Xanadu was involved? She's probably
>>> never seen GwtW either, but wouldn't she recognize Scarlett O'Hara,
>>> Rhett Butler, or even Tara?
>>>
>>> How many of today's generations have never seen the classic films --
>>> especially the ones that aren't in color?
>>
>>I've never seen Citizen Kane, nor did I remember clearly about Xanadu,
>
> So never did you your stately pleasure domes decree?

I don't even understand what "decree" means in this sentence.

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

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 8:02:29 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 10:44:33 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> > * Peter T. Daniels:

> > >> I've read the name "Antietam" before, but didn't know the pronunciation,
> > >> so couldn't identify it as a rhyme of "beat 'em" (I gave it four
> > >> syllables in my mind).

> > > Oh, you're so German.
> >
> > What makes you say that? I decided *not* to read the "tie" as in German,
> > but that's what you do, actually.

> Presumably it's Algonquian.
>
> How would that name be read if it were German?
>
> Compare "Saugerties," a presumably Dutch toponym.

Wikipedia tells me "Saugerties" is derived from "zagertje", meaning
"little sawyer". Dutch, yes, toponym, no.

bill

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 2:59:11 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
> >* Peter T. Daniels:
> >
> >> Yesterday was very sad indeed. "I've never seen Citizen Kane." Is that
> >> really necessary, to know that Xanadu was involved? She's probably
> >> never seen GwtW either, but wouldn't she recognize Scarlett O'Hara,
> >> Rhett Butler, or even Tara?
> >>
> >> How many of today's generations have never seen the classic films --
> >> especially the ones that aren't in color?
> >
> >I've never seen Citizen Kane, nor did I remember clearly about Xanadu,

> So never did you your stately pleasure domes decree?

No, that was a Lost Horizon for him.

bill

On Fri, 6 May 2022 18:54:23 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 12:48:34 -0400, Quinn C
>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 10:44:32 -0400, Quinn C
>>>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>* Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 6:05:00 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But Mattea knew Thomas Dewey and Antietam. Both of those are too deep
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Dewey Defeats Truman" should be well enough known that the dates
>>>>>>>> that were given would suffice
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why would that be well known more than 50 years later?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why shouldn't it? It comes up every time there's a US election on the
>>>>>> horizon where the polls indicate someone is a sure thing. There'll be
>>>>>> an article about previous upsets and not counting the chickens before
>>>>>> they're hatched. This photo will accompany the article:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fitsnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F11%2Fdewey-defeats-truman.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
>>>>>
>>>>>I see.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm following US presidential elections about as closely, I think, as
>>>>>any foreigner can be expected, sometimes closer, at least since 2000,
>>>>>and using mostly US sources, but I wasn't aware of it. So I guess it's
>>>>>one of those things that Americans can be expected to know, but not
>>>>>foreigners. So I stick with my opinion that Mattea is deeper into it
>>>>>than is reasonable to expect from a non-American.
>>>>
>>>> I don't watch "Jeopardy", but I know that Mattea Roach has been a
>>>> contestant on the show. I would not think someone who qualifies as a
>>>> contestant for "Jeopardy" is an average Canadian as far as knowledge
>>>> of worldwide events goes.
>>>
>>>> There is an audition process to get on the show, and I would assume
>>>> some ability to answer questions of a broader nature than Canadian
>>>> history and events would be required to get through that process.
>>>
>>>You're framing this wrong.
>>
>> Evidently, since I am not thinking about this the same way that you
>> are thinking about this, I am "wrong". Interesting.
>
>You were wrong, because you made it about "Canadian vs worldwide", when
>the much more prevalent opposition in Jeopardy is "American vs.
>worldwide".

In this context, a Canadian is a foreigner. The context is
established by your use of "non-American". I framed it as "American
vs foreigner".

Frankly, I don't understand your complaint. You mentioned somewhere
"if Canadians are allowed to enter". As far as I know, anyone - from
anywhere - can apply to enter. From then on, it's how that person
performs that determines if they continue to appear.

If they do apply, get through the audition process, and progress they
are expected to be able to answer the type of questions the program
presents regardless of their lack of previous exposure to the topic.
It's up to the individual to be prepared or prepare themselves.

Your perspective seems to be that as a viewer of the show you are
being discrimated against because you are at a disadvantage as a
non-American and not conversant with all things American.

I don't see how that's a valid complaint.

>
>The two prevalent types of questions that I can't answer in Jeopardy are
>a) from subjects that I'm not well-versed in and b) questions that are
>very US-specific.
>
>>>Someone preparing for Jeopardy has to take into account that it is an
>>>American show and should beef up their knowledge of US-specific things.
>>>For example, it's advisable to learn all the US presidents with their
>>>number - not knowledge of "worldwide" importance (that you number your
>>>presidents at all is a unique quirk.)
>>
>> Unique quirk? Scanning a list of kings and queens numbering seems
>> quite prevalent. Only the sequence differs.
>
>There is no 16th king of England, and James Monroe wasn't James II.
>Quite different systems.

That numbers are used in both systems obviates the "unique" aspect.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On 06-May-22 23:26, Snidely wrote:
> Sam Plusnet pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
>> On 06-May-22 15:33, Adam Funk wrote:
>>
>>> Do the presenters of quiz shows normally have much input into the
>>> questions? (I was under the impression they didn't, but ICBW.)
>>
>> It might depend on how important they seem to the show's success.
>
> I would expect that Trebek got a chance to do a quick review of new
> items in the question pool, and to give feedback to the writers.  He may
> also have suggested topics to cover.
>
> I'd like to more about the judges who rule on responses.  Are they from
> the writer team, or a separate set of folken with their own grasp of the
> knowledge base?

Probably an intern with a browser open to a google page.
It's important to keep a lid on costs.

Confession: I have never seen this TV (it is on TV I assume?)
programme, and have only heard of in places like this.

--
Sam Plusnet

* Tony Cooper:

> On Fri, 6 May 2022 18:54:23 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 12:48:34 -0400, Quinn C
>>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 10:44:32 -0400, Quinn C
>>>>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>* Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 6:05:00 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But Mattea knew Thomas Dewey and Antietam. Both of those are too deep
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Dewey Defeats Truman" should be well enough known that the dates
>>>>>>>>> that were given would suffice
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why would that be well known more than 50 years later?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why shouldn't it? It comes up every time there's a US election on the
>>>>>>> horizon where the polls indicate someone is a sure thing. There'll be
>>>>>>> an article about previous upsets and not counting the chickens before
>>>>>>> they're hatched. This photo will accompany the article:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fitsnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F11%2Fdewey-defeats-truman.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm following US presidential elections about as closely, I think, as
>>>>>>any foreigner can be expected, sometimes closer, at least since 2000,
>>>>>>and using mostly US sources, but I wasn't aware of it. So I guess it's
>>>>>>one of those things that Americans can be expected to know, but not
>>>>>>foreigners. So I stick with my opinion that Mattea is deeper into it
>>>>>>than is reasonable to expect from a non-American.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't watch "Jeopardy", but I know that Mattea Roach has been a
>>>>> contestant on the show. I would not think someone who qualifies as a
>>>>> contestant for "Jeopardy" is an average Canadian as far as knowledge
>>>>> of worldwide events goes.
>>>>
>>>>> There is an audition process to get on the show, and I would assume
>>>>> some ability to answer questions of a broader nature than Canadian
>>>>> history and events would be required to get through that process.
>>>>
>>>>You're framing this wrong.
>>>
>>> Evidently, since I am not thinking about this the same way that you
>>> are thinking about this, I am "wrong". Interesting.
>>
>>You were wrong, because you made it about "Canadian vs worldwide", when
>>the much more prevalent opposition in Jeopardy is "American vs.
>>worldwide".
>
> In this context, a Canadian is a foreigner. The context is
> established by your use of "non-American". I framed it as "American
> vs foreigner".

No you didn't. You better leave both the kickoff spot and the goalposts
where they were.
> Frankly, I don't understand your complaint. You mentioned somewhere
> "if Canadians are allowed to enter". As far as I know, anyone - from
> anywhere - can apply to enter.

No, only Americans and Canadians. Or maybe residents of those two
countries. But certainly not people living elsewhere.

> Your perspective seems to be that as a viewer of the show you are
> being discrimated against because you are at a disadvantage as a
> non-American and not conversant with all things American.
>
> I don't see how that's a valid complaint.

I'm just making the observation, contradicting PTD who surmises they
make it easy for the Canadian. No, it's harder for her than for
Americans. For other foreigners than Canadians, it would be even harder.

Recently, there was a candidate who was an immigrant notably struggling
with English, probably from a country in Asia. Given that handicap, she
did an admirable job, but she didn't really have a chance.

>>>[...] (that you number your
>>>>presidents at all is a unique quirk.)
>>>
>>> Unique quirk? Scanning a list of kings and queens numbering seems
>>> quite prevalent. Only the sequence differs.
>>
>>There is no 16th king of England, and James Monroe wasn't James II.
>>Quite different systems.
>
> That numbers are used in both systems obviates the "unique" aspect.

Nonsense.

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

On 07/05/22 00:34, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2022-05-06, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 06/05/22 01:50, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>> How big is a House district? Ours come very close to being
>>> exactly 1/435 of the total population as counted in the last
>>> Census, except it's messed up by the small states getting 1 Rep
>>> regardless of size; but within a state, all the districts have to
>>> be exactly the same size.
>>
>> It's the same here. All electorates have to be equal in population,
>> as much as practicable. I don't have the numbers to hand at the
>> moment. The redistributions are done by a non-partisan body, so
>> gerrymandering is not a problem.
>
> Good idea --- just out of curiosity, how are they appointed?

I presume that it's the same as in any other public service department.
When there's a job vacancy it's advertised in the newspapers, people
apply, and then a selection committee tries to choose the best qualified.

But I suppose you meant the senior management of that department.
Probably most of them get there because of internal promotion.

[Snip]

>> It's not all good. The main beneficiaries are likely to be the
>> United Australia Party and One Nation, both of which are extreme
>> right, anti-vax, and racist. The UAP is gaining support because it
>> is promising low-interest mortgages (while knowing that there is
>> no way it could finance that).

As in other countries, promising a chicken in every pot is a vote winner.

>> On the other hand, some climate change deniers in the government
>> run the risk of being edged out.
>
> Aren't extreme right kooks usually also climate change deniers?

Our present Liberal/National coalition government has its share of
extreme right kooks. Both of those parties are strong supporters of coal
mining, and that leads them to inaction on climate change.

But climate change is now, according to surveys, the top concern of
voters. For that reason, probably, a number of independents are standing
against government members on a platform of doing more about climate
change. In addition, there is a body lobbying for climate action that,
although not running candidates for election, is donating funds to those
independents that it approves of, to give those independents a better
chance of winning.

Meanwhile, we seem to have fewer right-wing kooks running as
independents, because they have a couple of extreme right parties they
can join.

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

On 07/05/22 05:32, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 06-May-22 17:12, Silvano wrote:
>
>> Must of us won't be there to check, but I read a few years ago
>> that French speakers in France will be a small minority of French
>> speakers worldwide in 2070. And the majority will not come from
>> Quebec. :-)
>
> I understand that the statement that: "London is the sixth largest
> French city" was just a rhetorical flourish used by Nicolas Sarkozy,
> but was later picked up by some chap called err... Boris Johnson[1].
>
> [1] Who is being blamed by a wide range of local Tory politicians for
> the party's poor showing in yesterday's local elections.

Melbourne, Victoria, used to be called the third-largest (by population)
Greek city in the world. I think it's now the second-largest, after Athens.

My own city of Newcastle is notable for having relatively few
non-British immigrants, but I still hear Greek spoken here now and then.

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

On 06/05/22 01:41, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> There have been an awful lot of questions in the last few weeks
> pertaining specifically to Canada. Someone's thumb seems to be on the
> scale. They seem to believe that long streaks are good for ratings,
> but in fact they're boring.

Years ago, a contestant on one of the Australian quiz shows remained the
reigning champion for over two years. I think the audience was happy
with that. I have a feeling that he left by resignation rather than by
being defeated.

He was a history teacher, but subsequently went into politics. In the
long run he became Minister for Science, probably on the grounds that a
history teacher knew more about science than anyone else in the government.

(Cross-thread comment: in this country, only an elected member of
parliament may be appointed as a minister. Traditionally, ministers who
make bad decisions are expected to resign, but these days they tend to
hang on until voted out at the next election.)

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

On 07/05/22 08:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>> For example, it's advisable to learn all the US presidents with
>> their number - not knowledge of "worldwide" importance (that you
>> number your presidents at all is a unique quirk.)
>
> Unique quirk? Scanning a list of kings and queens numbering seems
> quite prevalent. Only the sequence differs.

That's a different kind of numbering. Henry VIII was not the eighth king
of England. He was only the eighth one to be named Henry.

Australia's Prime Minister is our Nth Prime Minister, but very few
Australians would be able to tell you the value of N. It's not seen as
something worth remembering.

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

On 07/05/22 07:59, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> Yesterday was very sad indeed. "I've never seen Citizen Kane." Is
>>> that really necessary, to know that Xanadu was involved? She's
>>> probably never seen GwtW either, but wouldn't she recognize
>>> Scarlett O'Hara, Rhett Butler, or even Tara?
>>>
>>> How many of today's generations have never seen the classic films
>>> -- especially the ones that aren't in color?
>>
>> I've never seen Citizen Kane, nor did I remember clearly about
>> Xanadu,
>
> So never did you your stately pleasure domes decree?

You are quoting from English literature. There's no reason to think that
Quinn would ever have encountered Alf, the sacred river.

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

On 06/05/22 23:52, CDB wrote:
>
> We, on the other hand, have "Question Period", a somewhat raucous
> hour every sitting day in which Ministers answer questions put to
> them by backbenchers of all parties (but mostly opposition parties).
> Or don't:

We have a convention that the government and opposition take turns in
asking questions. That means that all the even-numbered questions are
Dorothy Dixers, and all the odd-numbered ones receive responses that are
unrelated to the question.

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

On Sat, 7 May 2022 12:21:24 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 07/05/22 08:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>> For example, it's advisable to learn all the US presidents with
>>> their number - not knowledge of "worldwide" importance (that you
>>> number your presidents at all is a unique quirk.)
>>
>> Unique quirk? Scanning a list of kings and queens numbering seems
>> quite prevalent. Only the sequence differs.
>
>That's a different kind of numbering. Henry VIII was not the eighth king
>of England. He was only the eighth one to be named Henry.

I do know that, but the statement was that we number our presidents,
and associating a number with a ruler is not unique to the US.

Our Presidents are only numbered when we refer to them as part of the
sequence. Martin Van Buren is still known as a President of the
United States without noting he was the 8th. Henry is always Henry
VIII.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On Fri, 6 May 2022 20:54:39 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 18:54:23 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 12:48:34 -0400, Quinn C
>>>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 10:44:32 -0400, Quinn C
>>>>>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>* Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 6:05:00 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But Mattea knew Thomas Dewey and Antietam. Both of those are too deep
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Dewey Defeats Truman" should be well enough known that the dates
>>>>>>>>>> that were given would suffice
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Why would that be well known more than 50 years later?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why shouldn't it? It comes up every time there's a US election on the
>>>>>>>> horizon where the polls indicate someone is a sure thing. There'll be
>>>>>>>> an article about previous upsets and not counting the chickens before
>>>>>>>> they're hatched. This photo will accompany the article:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fitsnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F11%2Fdewey-defeats-truman.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I see.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm following US presidential elections about as closely, I think, as
>>>>>>>any foreigner can be expected, sometimes closer, at least since 2000,
>>>>>>>and using mostly US sources, but I wasn't aware of it. So I guess it's
>>>>>>>one of those things that Americans can be expected to know, but not
>>>>>>>foreigners. So I stick with my opinion that Mattea is deeper into it
>>>>>>>than is reasonable to expect from a non-American.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't watch "Jeopardy", but I know that Mattea Roach has been a
>>>>>> contestant on the show. I would not think someone who qualifies as a
>>>>>> contestant for "Jeopardy" is an average Canadian as far as knowledge
>>>>>> of worldwide events goes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is an audition process to get on the show, and I would assume
>>>>>> some ability to answer questions of a broader nature than Canadian
>>>>>> history and events would be required to get through that process.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're framing this wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Evidently, since I am not thinking about this the same way that you
>>>> are thinking about this, I am "wrong". Interesting.
>>>
>>>You were wrong, because you made it about "Canadian vs worldwide", when
>>>the much more prevalent opposition in Jeopardy is "American vs.
>>>worldwide".
>>
>> In this context, a Canadian is a foreigner. The context is
>> established by your use of "non-American". I framed it as "American
>> vs foreigner".
>
>No you didn't. You better leave both the kickoff spot and the goalposts
>where they were.
>

A Canadian is a non-American, Mattea is a Canadian. Can you take
that one step further? Is she, or is she not, a "foreigner" when
appearing on an American television show?

>> Frankly, I don't understand your complaint. You mentioned somewhere
>> "if Canadians are allowed to enter". As far as I know, anyone - from
>> anywhere - can apply to enter.
>
>No, only Americans and Canadians. Or maybe residents of those two
>countries. But certainly not people living elsewhere.

This page does not indicate that only Americans and Canadians are
eligible:

https://www.jeopardy.com/be-on-j/faqs

I assume applicants would have be "residents" - at least during the
time they are on the show, but whether they live here permanently or
for the duration would not a barrier. I would think that someone who
is Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Haitian, or members of any other
nationality would be eligible to audition. There are many residents
in the US of nationalities other than American.

>
>> Your perspective seems to be that as a viewer of the show you are
>> being discrimated against because you are at a disadvantage as a
>> non-American and not conversant with all things American.
>>
>> I don't see how that's a valid complaint.
>
>I'm just making the observation, contradicting PTD who surmises they
>make it easy for the Canadian. No, it's harder for her than for
>Americans. For other foreigners than Canadians, it would be even harder.

And that's exactly where you lose me. There's no obligation for
anyone to apply to be on the show. The person applying would be
expected to know exactly what they're applying to be part of.

It might have been harder for Eddy Timanus or Tom Jackman to acquire
certain types of knowledge, but they managed.
But it's you, not Mattea, who's claiming that it's harder. She knew
the answer, you didn't. The questions aren't framed to be easier or
harder for the viewers.

>Recently, there was a candidate who was an immigrant notably struggling
>with English, probably from a country in Asia. Given that handicap, she
>did an admirable job, but she didn't really have a chance.
>
>>>>[...] (that you number your
>>>>>presidents at all is a unique quirk.)
>>>>
>>>> Unique quirk? Scanning a list of kings and queens numbering seems
>>>> quite prevalent. Only the sequence differs.
>>>
>>>There is no 16th king of England, and James Monroe wasn't James II.
>>>Quite different systems.
>>
>> That numbers are used in both systems obviates the "unique" aspect.
>
>Nonsense.

Do I misunderstand the meaning of "unique"?

Which definition at:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uniqu
allows something to be unique that shares a basic and common aspect
with a similar but different system?

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On Sat, 07 May 2022 00:37:40 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 7 May 2022 12:21:24 +1000, Peter Moylan
><peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 07/05/22 08:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:27:24 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>> For example, it's advisable to learn all the US presidents with
>>>> their number - not knowledge of "worldwide" importance (that you
>>>> number your presidents at all is a unique quirk.)
>>>
>>> Unique quirk? Scanning a list of kings and queens numbering seems
>>> quite prevalent. Only the sequence differs.
>>
>>That's a different kind of numbering. Henry VIII was not the eighth king
>>of England. He was only the eighth one to be named Henry.
>
>I do know that, but the statement was that we number our presidents,
>and associating a number with a ruler is not unique to the US.
>
>Our Presidents are only numbered when we refer to them as part of the
>sequence. Martin Van Buren is still known as a President of the
>United States without noting he was the 8th. Henry is always Henry
>VIII.
>
Posted in haste. Change "ruler" to "ruler/president" and note that
Henry was only Henry VIII when he was king. Prior that he was Prince
Harry or Harry Tudor.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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