* Bebercito:

> Le lundi 23 mai 2022 à 16:47:23 UTC+2, Tony Cooper a écrit :
>> On Mon, 23 May 2022 10:09:03 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>
>>>> To me, there are important distinctions between cafeteria style and
>>>> buffet style.
>>>>
>>>> Buffet style allows the person to take large portions of something
>>>> they like, and to return for additional items. All, usually, at one
>>>> fixed price.
>>>
>>>In some places, you're charged by weight. I would still call it buffet
>>>if you fill your plate yourself with any combination of items.
>> Yes, but that was stated as part of my description of a buffet. At a
>> buffet, the customer fills the plate. At a cafeteria, the cafeteria
>> employee fills the plate.
>>
>> The "by weight" thing is common here, but it's not the type of buffet
>> where you can return to the line for a second helping at no charge.
>
> The latter case is specifically referred to as "buffet à volonté" (= you
> can have as many helpings as you want at the same price) in French.
> Has the phrase by any chance made it into English?

Most buffets are like that here, but some may state "all you can eat".
But more likely a restaurant that advertises "all you can eat" is not
buffet style. The few (2 or 3) all you can eat sushi places I've visited
were not buffet style, and at least one had a rule that you would be
charged for leftovers on your plate.

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

On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 3:48:06 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2022 12:14:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 2:10:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> >> There are two theories of why the leaker leaked.
> >> One is that the leaker is in favor of Roe v Wade being overturned, and
> >> wanted Alito's draft to be public to lock in Alito's position. In
> >> this theory, Alito can't soften his position later bowing to pressure.
> >Rather, to keep any of the other four from being seen to switch their position.
> >Note that the Chief is not among the assenters.
>
> Explicitly - the worry was that Roberts would convince Kavanaugh
> or Barrett to switch.
>
> >> The other theory is that leaker doesn't want Roe v Wade to be
> >> overturned, and leaked the draft as a means of mobilizing opposition
> >> to Alito's opinion in the draft.
> >That, at least, is working.
>
> On consideration of the contents of the opinion, and the fact
> that there have been no later drafts since February, I've come
> up with another theory: It was leaked by a friend of Alito, in
> hopes (at least) that it would be re-writtien. Else, Alito is doomed
> to replace Taney (Dred Scott, fugitive slave law) as the author of
> the most arrogant, wrong-headed, consequential decision ever.

There's something called "judicial temperament" that judges are
supposed to have. Since this is the first time we've ever seen a
draft opinion before it went through the refinement process, we
can't really be certain that Alito is the only one who doesn't have it
-- but the several dissents written by Scalia that I've read suggest
that he was very much from the same mold.

> Alito fancies himself as a historian, but he cherrypicks carelessly.
> Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC) predicts that Alito will drop the
> citations to Matthew Hale, the 17th century witch-hunter,
> misogynist and famous British jurist.

Though opinions get edited in order to win more votes to one's side.
I haven't read many SCOTUS books, so it's either Woodward's *The
Brethren* or Earl Warren's *A Republic, If You Can Keep It* (Franklin
quote) that goes into much detail about the horsetrading Warren did
to get a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Drafts
were not quoted. They may even not be preserved in the SCOTUS Archives.

(One of Scalia's dissents was immediately recognized as having been
written as a majority opinion but someone switched at the last moment.)

On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 8:48:30 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 23/05/22 04:51, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> > On 22-May-22 1:21, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 May 2022 01:04:48 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 21-May-22 22:50, Tony Cooper wrote:

> >>>> I don't recall seeing "cafeteria" being used by Brits. The
> >>>> concept, yes, but not the word.
> >>> One of the terms for eating places for employees and other
> >>> inmates.
> >>> Canteen, cafeteria, staff dining room, refectory.
> >> In the US, there are restaurants that are cafeterias. For the
> >> public, not for the employees of a particular company.
> >> The same in the UK?
> > I can't recall ever seeing an eating place, open to the general
> > public, which called itself a cafeteria. Maybe others here have had
> > a different experience.
>
> Some big department stores here used to have cafeterias open to the
> public, but as far as I know they have all disappeared. The notion of
> "company cafeteria" still exists, I believe, because those have a more
> predictable clientele.
>
> About once a fortnight my wife and I go with a group of friends to a
> club for dinner. What they call the club "bistro" has some similarities
> to a cafeteria, in that you line up to put in your order, and then later
> go back to get the food when your buzzer buzzes, but it's not really a
> cafeteria.

It's not a cafeteria AT ALL. The sole defining criterion of a cafeteria is
pushing your tray along the serving line (on the shelf in front of the
display case).

On Sun, 15 May 2022 20:03:52 +0100, Paul Wolff
<bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

> I've never found the conning tower.

When I first heard of submarines, they were described as having an
olive toothpicked to one end.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

* Peter T. Daniels:

> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>
> Unfortunately, in 1989 Scalia crossed out the first clause -- so much
> for "original intent."
>
> The Constitution makes no provision for a standing army, which in
> light of experience, the Founders considered anathema.

Just wanted to point out that probably most countries have quite the
opposite stance - that a standing army is necessary for the security of
a free state, but the people bearing arms is rather a danger to it. I
learned that as the doctrine of the state's monopoly on the use of force
- because we want the use of force to be strongly regulated by law.

--
Genocide is not like gifts - the thought doesn't count.
-- 22 minutes,
on Erin O'Toole's statement that residential
schools were "meant to try and provide education."

On Sat, 21 May 2022 12:48:38 +0100, Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:

>In article <06qg8hdiranh41i8d3rmdjb4o9mdg426rm@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
>@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On Sat, 21 May 2022 13:19:45 +1000, Peter Moylan
>> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On 21/05/22 11:48, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> >> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 7:30:48 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> >
>> >>> In that category, a phrase that particularly strikes me is "Gees
>> >>> cripes". Apparently most people are unaware that that has a
>> >>> religious origin.
>> >>
>> >> I've never seen or heard that phrase. I figured out early on that
>> >> "Jeez" has a religious origin, but I was surprised to learn that
>> >> "Sheesh" is supposed to have the same origin.
>> >
>> >That surprises me, too. I have always assumed that "sheesh" was a minced
>> >"shit".
>> >
>> >Google doesn't help. The very first hit says that it was invented by
>> >someone on TikTok, and it takes an effort to find the ones that don't
>> >mention TikTok. One site traces it from Hebrew ?????????? down through ??????
>> >amd Iesus and finally to sheesh. I'd never heard of those earlier steps,
>> >and I'm still not convinced about the final step.
>>
>> I can't provide proof, but I'm sure "sheesh" was commonly used long
>> before TikTok came along. Or mobile phones. Or even cordless phones.
>
> It wuz. So wuz Jeez
>
> Janet.

The OED gives the origin of "sheesh" as:

Probably an alteration of Jeez int.

The earliest quotation is:

1959 Clearfield (Pa.) Progress 31 Oct. 16/2 When I asked him
which one he preferred he stated, ‘Rice University where Uncle Ben
was converted.’ Sheesh, such wit.

The earliest quotation with "jeez" is;

1896 Denver Evening Post 5 Dec. 4/5 Jeez, you're swellin' me
this mornin'.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

On 24-May-22 4:24, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2022 20:03:52 +0100, Paul Wolff
> <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I've never found the conning tower.
>
> When I first heard of submarines, they were described as having an
> olive toothpicked to one end.
>
I wonder how sardines would describe a submarine?

--
Sam Plusnet

On Sat, 21 May 2022 07:47:52 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 9:30:48 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 21/05/22 05:40, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> > On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 19:31:44, Sam Plusnet posted:
>> >> On 20-May-22 2:19, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> >>>
>It's very possible that some of the OMG users have
>> >>> no idea that gods were originally being invoked.
>> >> OK.
>> > O Krikey?
>>
>> In that category, a phrase that particularly strikes me is "Gees
>> cripes". Apparently most people are unaware that that has a religious
>> origin.
>
>An Ozzism?
>
>We have "Crimeny!" [the i pronounced to assonate]
>
>And, since about 1940, "Jiminy Cricket!" (TC can look up the release date
>of *Pinocchio* if he cares.)

Thre is a comedian born in Northern Ireland who uses the stage name
Jimmy Cricket. I don't know for sure, but that name might have been
inspired by "Jiminy Cricket". He is James Mulgrew and, of course, Jimmy
is a diminutive of James.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Cricket

https://www.jimmycricket.co.uk/

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes:
>I wonder how sardines would describe a submarine?

World-Wide Web:

|The story goes that when Captain Cook's ship arrived off
|Australia in 1770, the vessel drew no reaction from the
|natives. According to the historian Robert Hughes:
|"It was the largest artefact ever seen on the east coast of
|Australia, an object so huge, complex and unfamiliar as to
|defy the natives' understanding." It was almost as if the
|ship could not be seen.
quoted from the World-Wide Web.

On 24/05/2022 8:28 pm, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes:
>> I wonder how sardines would describe a submarine?
>
> World-Wide Web:
>
> |The story goes that when Captain Cook's ship arrived off
> |Australia in 1770, the vessel drew no reaction from the
> |natives. According to the historian Robert Hughes:
> |"It was the largest artefact ever seen on the east coast of
> |Australia, an object so huge, complex and unfamiliar as to
> |defy the natives' understanding." It was almost as if the
> |ship could not be seen.
> quoted from the World-Wide Web.

Displacing 18,750 tonnes, there is no doubt that Ohios are very
fat fish indeed, and at 170 metres they're over four times as
long as a blue whale. Looking very much like a blue whale at the
front, the likeness ends with the dorsal fin, which is colossal,
but doesn't seem to slow it down below a blue whale's top speed
of 15 knots. More importantly, watch out for their tail fins,
which go round like the clappers and will soon turn you into
puree; but most of all beware the one you don't even know is
there. Unlike the friendly toot you'll get from a blue whale, the
Ohio is quieter than the grave, and will run you down as soon as
look at you. Truly a sub to fear.

Quoted from Sardine Geographic.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:55:55 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:

> > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
> > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> >
> > Unfortunately, in 1989 Scalia crossed out the first clause -- so much
> > for "original intent."
> >
> > The Constitution makes no provision for a standing army, which in
> > light of experience, the Founders considered anathema.
>
> Just wanted to point out that probably most countries have quite the
> opposite stance - that a standing army is necessary for the security of
> a free state, but the people bearing arms is rather a danger to it. I
> learned that as the doctrine of the state's monopoly on the use of force
> - because we want the use of force to be strongly regulated by law.

How'd that work out in Germany, 1933-1945? Or, for that matter, 1914-1918?

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:42:52 PM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2022 07:47:52 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 9:30:48 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 21/05/22 05:40, Paul Wolff wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 19:31:44, Sam Plusnet posted:
> >> >> On 20-May-22 2:19, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> >>>
> >It's very possible that some of the OMG users have
> >> >>> no idea that gods were originally being invoked.
> >> >> OK.
> >> > O Krikey?
> >>
> >> In that category, a phrase that particularly strikes me is "Gees
> >> cripes". Apparently most people are unaware that that has a religious
> >> origin.
> >
> >An Ozzism?
> >
> >We have "Crimeny!" [the i pronounced to assonate]
> >
> >And, since about 1940, "Jiminy Cricket!" (TC can look up the release date
> >of *Pinocchio* if he cares.)
>
> Thre is a comedian born in Northern Ireland who uses the stage name
> Jimmy Cricket. I don't know for sure, but that name might have been
> inspired by "Jiminy Cricket". He is James Mulgrew and, of course, Jimmy
> is a diminutive of James.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Cricket

Not a hint of the origin of the name! But apparently Irishpersons think
"cut-off evening trousers" are hilarious, not to mention "wellington boots
marked "L" and "R" for left and right, but worn on the wrong feet."

b. 1945; *Pinocchio* 1940.

> https://www.jimmycricket.co.uk/

On 24-May-22 20:49, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 8:28 pm, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes:
>>> I wonder how sardines would describe a submarine?
>>
>>    World-Wide Web:
>>
>> |The story goes that when Captain Cook's ship arrived off
>> |Australia in 1770, the vessel drew no reaction from the
>> |natives. According to the historian Robert Hughes:
>> |"It was the largest artefact ever seen on the east coast of
>> |Australia, an object so huge, complex and unfamiliar as to
>> |defy the natives' understanding." It was almost as if the
>> |ship could not be seen.
>> quoted from the World-Wide Web.
>
>
> Displacing 18,750 tonnes, there is no doubt that Ohios are very fat fish
> indeed, and at 170 metres they're over four times as long as a blue
> whale. Looking very much like a blue whale at the front, the likeness
> ends with the dorsal fin, which is colossal, but doesn't seem to slow it
> down below a blue whale's top speed of 15 knots. More importantly, watch
> out for their tail fins, which go round like the clappers and will soon
> turn you into puree; but most of all beware the one you don't even know
> is there. Unlike the friendly toot you'll get from a blue whale, the
> Ohio is quieter than the grave, and will run you down as soon as look at
> you. Truly a sub to fear.
>
> Quoted from Sardine Geographic.
>
I was expecting them to come up with something along the lines of
"Tinned Humans", and go looking for the tin opener.

--
Sam Plusnet

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:55:55 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>
>>> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
>>> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, in 1989 Scalia crossed out the first clause -- so much
>>> for "original intent."
>>>
>>> The Constitution makes no provision for a standing army, which in
>>> light of experience, the Founders considered anathema.
>>
>> Just wanted to point out that probably most countries have quite the
>> opposite stance - that a standing army is necessary for the security of
>> a free state, but the people bearing arms is rather a danger to it. I
>> learned that as the doctrine of the state's monopoly on the use of force
>> - because we want the use of force to be strongly regulated by law.
>
> How'd that work out in Germany, 1933-1945? Or, for that matter, 1914-1918?

Those people who loved weapons were mostly on the side of the fascists
then, and would be in the US in a similar situation. Which has become
much more likely in the last decade.

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

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:42:52 PM UTC-6, PeterWD wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2022 07:47:52 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 9:30:48 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 21/05/22 05:40, Paul Wolff wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 20 May 2022, at 19:31:44, Sam Plusnet posted:
> >> >> On 20-May-22 2:19, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> >>>
> >It's very possible that some of the OMG users have
> >> >>> no idea that gods were originally being invoked.
> >> >> OK.
> >> > O Krikey?
> >>
> >> In that category, a phrase that particularly strikes me is "Gees
> >> cripes". Apparently most people are unaware that that has a religious
> >> origin.
> >
> >An Ozzism?
> >
> >We have "Crimeny!" [the i pronounced to assonate]
> >
> >And, since about 1940, "Jiminy Cricket!" (TC can look up the release date
> >of *Pinocchio* if he cares.)
>
> Thre is a comedian born in Northern Ireland who uses the stage name
> Jimmy Cricket. I don't know for sure, but that name might have been
> inspired by "Jiminy Cricket". He is James Mulgrew and, of course, Jimmy
> is a diminutive of James.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Cricket
>
> https://www.jimmycricket.co.uk/

Speaking of minced oaths whose origins I was unaware of, it wasn't till I read
Dorothy Sayers that I connected "Jiminy" with "Gemini".

--
Jerry Friedman

On Thu, 19 May 2022 01:45:28 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 May 2022 00:27:36 -0400, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>>
>>The phrase comes from the Second Amendment to the United States
>>Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
>>security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
>>Arms, shall not be infringed."
>
>Of mild AUE interest: Yes, that is properly quoted, word for word,
>phrase for phrase, with every comma. Not modern English.
>
>In the history of constitutional interpretation, that phrase about
>Militia was prominent in justifying the Court's history and tradition
>of regulation of handguns, etc.
>
>A few years ago, the Supreme Court simplified the parsing by
>(without saying so) deciding to ignore "militia" phrase, entirely.
>Then, drop one comma and you get an ordinary, modern reading.
>
>The decision also was notable for relying on a 17th century English
>precedent. I think that the arrogant amateur historian is Alito.
>

I've had a small epiphany this week.

It occurs to me that "bearing arms" is ALWAYS in my head
as something pertaining to the military, not to individuals
or mobs. The reference to 'militia' at the start is no problem if
'keep and bear arms' is a reference to exactly the same thing,
using other words.

I've seen and read to 50 years of commentary which claimed that
the 'militia' phrase was basically unintelligible, ... however,
SCOTUS (somehow, obscurely they implied) relied on that phrase
to justify allowing restraints. I think those commentators missed
the point.

The modern re-write might be less ambiguous, adding a few
words like this (also dropping the olden breath-commas).

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to [join a militia whose members
may] keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I was thinking of this again because the news is that the
Supreme Court will soon release an opinion for New York City
which is apt to let guns proliferate there and everywhere.

I presume SCOTUS will imply a new reading like, "(A well
regulated Militia being irrelevant), anyone can carry a gun,
any time and any place." Pretty extreme revision, to my mind.
Small respect of text.

These conservatives, by the way, supposedly pride
themselves on honoring the original text, if not the original
meaning.

--
Rich Ulrich

On 2022-05-20, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> On Fri, 20 May 2022 11:45:14 +1000
> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 20/05/22 05:58, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> > On Thu, 19 May 2022 20:13:25 +0100 Richard Heathfield
>> > <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> We have such places, but we don't call them "transport cafes". They
>> >> are normally on motorways and are known as "motorway services".
>> >> Generally run as part of a chain: Moto, RoadChef, Welcome Break,
>> >> Granada, etc. Expensive, with plastic food. Transport "caffs" are
>> >> typically independent, cheap and cheerful affairs with rather more
>> >> tempting (but still cholesterol-laden) fare.
>> >>
>> > And the latter are possibly extinct. I've not seen one for 3
>> > decades.
>>
>> In Australia those traditional places were private businesses - hotels,
>> junk food shops, cafes, and so on - that took advantage of their
>> location on a busy highway. Frequent highway users, most particularly
>> truck drivers, worked out which ones were worth stopping at, and the
>> news spread by word of mouth. If you saw several trucks parked outside a
>> nondescript building, you'd know that that place probably did good
>> hamburgers or other lunch possibilities.
>>
>> Over time, though, the biggest highways were upgraded, often to
>> limited-access roads. Towns were bypassed, and those old
>> side-of-the-highway places lost customers.
>>
>> When a major freeway is built, you can't just set up shop at the side of
>> the road. The road authorities control who gets the rights to sell food
>> at the "services" stops, and that squeezes out the mum-and-dad shops
>> that sell good food, in favour of big chains that sell plastic food.
>>
>> When I'm doing a long road trip, I take the exit to a nearby town when I
>> need a lunch break, especially if it's a town that I know from past
>> experience to have good food.
>
> Peculiarly, we have Tebay services in the ^w on the approach to th Lake District; this is family run.
>
> Not long after we got a motorway system a chap wrote "Just off the Motorway" to direct people to better eating and cheaper fuel options. I guess people use google or Satnavs these days.
>
> Ah there's a website (a bit spartan)
> https://www.justoffjunction.co.uk/
>
> aha!
> A bit (42years! -Ed) dated (1980) but nice descriptions (scenic spots as well as essentials)
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Off-Motorway-John-Slater/dp/0330255746

For some reason, all the French motorway service areas (IME) are
decent, whereas all the British ones (IME) except Tebay are
hell-holes.

--
When Chayefsky created Howard Beale, could he have imagined
Jerry Springer, Howard Stern, and the World Wrestling
Federation? ---Roger Ebert

On 2022-05-21, lar3ryca wrote:

> On 2022-05-21 02:21, Snidely wrote:
>> Just this Friday, lar3ryca puzzled about:
>>> On 2022-05-20 22:23, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 May 2022 13:19:45 +1000, Peter Moylan
>>>> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/05/22 11:48, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 7:30:48 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In that category, a phrase that particularly strikes me is "Gees
>>>>>>> cripes". Apparently most people are unaware that that has a
>>>>>>> religious origin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never seen or heard that phrase.  I figured out early on that
>>>>>> "Jeez" has a religious origin, but I was surprised to learn that
>>>>>> "Sheesh" is supposed to have the same origin.
>>>>>
>>>>> That surprises me, too. I have always assumed that "sheesh" was a
>>>>> minced
>>>>> "shit".
>>>>>
>>>>> Google doesn't help. The very first hit says that it was invented by
>>>>> someone on TikTok, and it takes an effort to find the ones that don't
>>>>> mention TikTok. One site traces it from Hebrew ?????????? down
>>>>> through ??????
>>>>> amd Iesus and finally to sheesh. I'd never heard of those earlier
>>>>> steps,
>>>>> and I'm still not convinced about the final step.
>>>>
>>>> I can't provide proof, but I'm sure "sheesh" was commonly used long
>>>> before TikTok came along.  Or mobile phones.  Or even cordless phones.
>>>
>>> Absolutely. I think I used that in the 60s, if not before.
>>
>> I think I even heard it in some Hanna-Barbera cartoons, most likely from
>> Mr Jinks during his pursuit of Pixie and Dixie.
>
> On further reflection, I think I first read it in a MAD Magazine, which
> my brother and I started reading in the early 50s.
>
> Unfortunately, I no longer have a machine on which my MAD Magazine
> CDRoms (1952-1998) will run.

I assume the CDs have *.exe files with the data embedded in
them. Someone who knows Windows programming could probably
reverse-engineer the images out.

--
Unit tests are like the boy who cried wolf.

In article <9B9jK.437465$3b1.110608@fx14.ams1>, not@home.com says...
>
> On 24-May-22 4:24, Joy Beeson wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 May 2022 20:03:52 +0100, Paul Wolff
> > <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I've never found the conning tower.
> >
> > When I first heard of submarines, they were described as having an
> > olive toothpicked to one end.
> >
> I wonder how sardines would describe a submarine?

"God"

Janet

Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> On 2022-05-21, lar3ryca wrote:
>
> > On 2022-05-21 02:21, Snidely wrote:
> >> Just this Friday, lar3ryca puzzled about:
> >>> On 2022-05-20 22:23, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 21 May 2022 13:19:45 +1000, Peter Moylan
> >>>> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 21/05/22 11:48, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 7:30:48 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> In that category, a phrase that particularly strikes me is "Gees
> >>>>>>> cripes". Apparently most people are unaware that that has a
> >>>>>>> religious origin.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've never seen or heard that phrase. I figured out early on that
> >>>>>> "Jeez" has a religious origin, but I was surprised to learn that
> >>>>>> "Sheesh" is supposed to have the same origin.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That surprises me, too. I have always assumed that "sheesh" was a
> >>>>> minced
> >>>>> "shit".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Google doesn't help. The very first hit says that it was invented by
> >>>>> someone on TikTok, and it takes an effort to find the ones that don't
> >>>>> mention TikTok. One site traces it from Hebrew ?????????? down
> >>>>> through ??????
> >>>>> amd Iesus and finally to sheesh. I'd never heard of those earlier
> >>>>> steps,
> >>>>> and I'm still not convinced about the final step.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can't provide proof, but I'm sure "sheesh" was commonly used long
> >>>> before TikTok came along. Or mobile phones. Or even cordless phones.
> >>>
> >>> Absolutely. I think I used that in the 60s, if not before.
> >>
> >> I think I even heard it in some Hanna-Barbera cartoons, most likely from
> >> Mr Jinks during his pursuit of Pixie and Dixie.
> >
> > On further reflection, I think I first read it in a MAD Magazine, which
> > my brother and I started reading in the early 50s.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I no longer have a machine on which my MAD Magazine
> > CDRoms (1952-1998) will run.
>
> I assume the CDs have *.exe files with the data embedded in
> them. Someone who knows Windows programming could probably
> reverse-engineer the images out.

With some luck it may have scanned pages stored as .jpg files.
(or perhaps assembled in .pdf)
The .exe should be no more than a front end to the data,

Jan

On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:25:44 +0100, Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:

>In article <9B9jK.437465$3b1.110608@fx14.ams1>, not@home.com says...
>>
>> On 24-May-22 4:24, Joy Beeson wrote:
>> > On Sun, 15 May 2022 20:03:52 +0100, Paul Wolff
>> > <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've never found the conning tower.
>> >
>> > When I first heard of submarines, they were described as having an
>> > olive toothpicked to one end.
>> >
>> I wonder how sardines would describe a submarine?
>
> "God"

One sardine to another:

Hey, bud, does that thing have one of those funny keys on the side to
open it?

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:34:44 AM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> I've had a small epiphany this week.
>
> It occurs to me that "bearing arms" is ALWAYS in my head
> as something pertaining to the military, not to individuals
> or mobs. The reference to 'militia' at the start is no problem if
> 'keep and bear arms' is a reference to exactly the same thing,
> using other words.
>
> I've seen and read to 50 years of commentary which claimed that
> the 'militia' phrase was basically unintelligible, ... however,
> SCOTUS (somehow, obscurely they implied) relied on that phrase
> to justify allowing restraints. I think those commentators missed
> the point.
>
> The modern re-write might be less ambiguous, adding a few
> words like this (also dropping the olden breath-commas).
>
> "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
> free State, the right of the people to [join a militia whose members
> may] keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
>
> I was thinking of this again because the news is that the
> Supreme Court will soon release an opinion for New York City
> which is apt to let guns proliferate there and everywhere.
>
> I presume SCOTUS will imply a new reading like, "(A well
> regulated Militia being irrelevant), anyone can carry a gun,
> any time and any place." Pretty extreme revision, to my mind.
> Small respect of text.

That's what Scalia did in 1989.

> These conservatives, by the way, supposedly pride
> themselves on honoring the original text, if not the original
> meaning.

When Scalia was appointed, he was a junior faculty member of the
U of Chicago Law School with a bizarre and untested theory of
"original intent" that had barely been published, let alone discussed
in the theory-of-law literature. The theory wasn't explored by the Judiciary
Committee (was Biden still in charge, as he was for Clarence Thomas?),
and he was confirmed unanimously or nearly so because they'd just been
through the messes with Bork and with Rehnquist being promoted to Chief
when Burger retired (died?).

But apparently clauses written in the Constitution don't count as "original
intent" when they don't conform to one's political interests.

On 5/21/2022 2:10 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Paul Wolff <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels posted:
>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>> Jerry Friedman posted:
>>>>> Paul Wolff wrote:

>>>>>> I'm interested in ethical issues anywhere. Take a world
>>>>>> view, and see where the stories are coming from. The
>>>>>> reporting is grossly unbalanced. I thought it wholly
>>>>>> disproportionate for the question whether abortion falls
>>>>>> under the Constitution or under State law in the USA to be
>>>>>> promoted to the top item of news locally in Britain.
>>>>> Well, in practical terms, it means abortion will become
>>>>> illegal, always or almost always, in eleven states as soon as
>>>>> the decision is announced, and in another fifteen or so
>>>>> shortly afterwards, IIRC.

>>>> So between a quarter and a half of all US states will join how
>>>> many other states worldwide where that is currently true?
>>>> [Rhetorical question for effect, not for the answer, which
>>>> actually I do not know, but I suspect it's not the number
>>>> anyone first thinks of.]

>>>> Looking at it another way, which wasn't even mentioned in the
>>>> BBC news, our liberal western democratic values ought to
>>>> applaud democracy in action, should they not? Or should we
>>>> stamp on democracy when it makes the wrong decision. Tricky
>>>> one, that. I offer N. Ireland in evidence.

>>> In the latest (NPR/PBS/NORC) poll, 64% of Americans say that
>>> abortion should be legal in all or most cases. [NORC is the
>>> National Opinion Research Center, a U of Chicago outfit]

>>> The problem is that (I think this is how a senator put it on one
>>> of the Sunday shows last week) 75% of the senators represent 44%
>>> of the people.

>>>>>> And it's still undecided, by the way.
>>>>> It's now clear how the decision will go.

>>>> We've been spared the updates, thank goodness.

>>> No "updates." The decision will be announced at the end of June
>>> or the beginning of July -- they always save the biggest ones for
>>> last. We don't know how much of Alito's venom had already been
>>> taken out between the writing in February and the publication in
>>> May. Or in what way the public reaction will influence any
>>> further changes.

>> I thought the leaker might make a habit of it. Still, no court
>> judgment is a judgment until it's been delivered, and no point in
>> crying over the milk before it's been spilt.

> There are two theories of why the leaker leaked.

> One is that the leaker is in favor of Roe v Wade being overturned,
> and wanted Alito's draft to be public to lock in Alito's position.
> In this theory, Alito can't soften his position later bowing to
> pressure.

> The other theory is that leaker doesn't want Roe v Wade to be
> overturned, and leaked the draft as a means of mobilizing opposition
> to Alito's opinion in the draft.

Or getting out the vote in November.

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:03:53 AM UTC-6, CDB wrote:
> On 5/21/2022 2:10 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
....

> > There are two theories of why the leaker leaked.
>
> > One is that the leaker is in favor of Roe v Wade being overturned,
> > and wanted Alito's draft to be public to lock in Alito's position.
> > In this theory, Alito can't soften his position later bowing to
> > pressure.
> > The other theory is that leaker doesn't want Roe v Wade to be
> > overturned, and leaked the draft as a means of mobilizing opposition
> > to Alito's opinion in the draft.

> Or getting out the vote in November.

The announcement this summer would probably be have been just as
effective at getting out the vote, for both sides, without the leak.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 2022-05-25, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-05-21, lar3ryca wrote:
>>
>> > On 2022-05-21 02:21, Snidely wrote:
>> >> Just this Friday, lar3ryca puzzled about:
>> >>> On 2022-05-20 22:23, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> >>>> On Sat, 21 May 2022 13:19:45 +1000, Peter Moylan
>> >>>> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 21/05/22 11:48, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 7:30:48 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> In that category, a phrase that particularly strikes me is "Gees
>> >>>>>>> cripes". Apparently most people are unaware that that has a
>> >>>>>>> religious origin.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I've never seen or heard that phrase. I figured out early on that
>> >>>>>> "Jeez" has a religious origin, but I was surprised to learn that
>> >>>>>> "Sheesh" is supposed to have the same origin.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> That surprises me, too. I have always assumed that "sheesh" was a
>> >>>>> minced
>> >>>>> "shit".
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Google doesn't help. The very first hit says that it was invented by
>> >>>>> someone on TikTok, and it takes an effort to find the ones that don't
>> >>>>> mention TikTok. One site traces it from Hebrew ?????????? down
>> >>>>> through ??????
>> >>>>> amd Iesus and finally to sheesh. I'd never heard of those earlier
>> >>>>> steps,
>> >>>>> and I'm still not convinced about the final step.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I can't provide proof, but I'm sure "sheesh" was commonly used long
>> >>>> before TikTok came along. Or mobile phones. Or even cordless phones.
>> >>>
>> >>> Absolutely. I think I used that in the 60s, if not before.
>> >>
>> >> I think I even heard it in some Hanna-Barbera cartoons, most likely from
>> >> Mr Jinks during his pursuit of Pixie and Dixie.
>> >
>> > On further reflection, I think I first read it in a MAD Magazine, which
>> > my brother and I started reading in the early 50s.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, I no longer have a machine on which my MAD Magazine
>> > CDRoms (1952-1998) will run.
>>
>> I assume the CDs have *.exe files with the data embedded in
>> them. Someone who knows Windows programming could probably
>> reverse-engineer the images out.
>
> With some luck it may have scanned pages stored as .jpg files.
> (or perhaps assembled in .pdf)
> The .exe should be no more than a front end to the data,

Ideally, yes, but a lot of novelty software used to have the data
tucked inside.

--
Oh let the sun beat down upon my face
with stars to fill my dreams
I am a traveller of both time and space
to be where I have been