Wed, 4 May 2022 15:04:21 -0600: lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> scribeva:

>On 2022-05-04 11:26, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Wed, 4 May 2022 07:25:21 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 7:58:48 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to be
>>>>>>>> affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German system, you
>>>>>>>> elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of government should
>>>>>>>> be very much aligned with the party and its platform, or it's confusing.
>>>>>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>>>>>> scribeva:
>>>
>>>>> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>>>>
>>>> Still falsely accusing people, or again. I quoted Adam Funk directly,
>>>> and what he quoted from Quinn. So how can I possibly have done
>>>> anything wrong?
>>>
>>> Attributions belong at the top of the message. In order.
>>
>> I put them directly above the text each person wrote. Much clearer.
>>
>>> Despite Brader.
>>
>> Who or what is Brader?
>
>Hello. <tap tap tap> Is this newsgroup arriving in your newsreader?

It is. Please answer the question.

Wed, 04 May 2022 14:04:07 -0500: msb@vex.net (Mark Brader)

Ah, there you are.

On 2022-05-04 23:08, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 4 May 2022 15:04:21 -0600: lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> scribeva:
>
>> On 2022-05-04 11:26, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Wed, 4 May 2022 07:25:21 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 7:58:48 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to be
>>>>>>>>> affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German system, you
>>>>>>>>> elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of government should
>>>>>>>>> be very much aligned with the party and its platform, or it's confusing.
>>>>>>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>>>>>>> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>>> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>>>>>
>>>>> Still falsely accusing people, or again. I quoted Adam Funk directly,
>>>>> and what he quoted from Quinn. So how can I possibly have done
>>>>> anything wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Attributions belong at the top of the message. In order.
>>>
>>> I put them directly above the text each person wrote. Much clearer.
>>>
>>>> Despite Brader.
>>>
>>> Who or what is Brader?
>>
>> Hello. <tap tap tap> Is this newsgroup arriving in your newsreader?
>
> It is. Please answer the question.

No. I see my hint was sufficient.

Ruud Harmsen speculated:
> Wed, 4 May 2022 15:04:21 -0600: lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> scribeva:
>
>> On 2022-05-04 11:26, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Wed, 4 May 2022 07:25:21 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 7:58:48 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to
>>>>>>>>> be affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German system,
>>>>>>>>> you elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of government
>>>>>>>>> should be very much aligned with the party and its platform, or it's
>>>>>>>>> confusing.
>>>>>>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>>>>>>> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>>> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>>>>>
>>>>> Still falsely accusing people, or again. I quoted Adam Funk directly,
>>>>> and what he quoted from Quinn. So how can I possibly have done
>>>>> anything wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Attributions belong at the top of the message. In order.
>>>
>>> I put them directly above the text each person wrote. Much clearer.
>>>
>>>> Despite Brader.
>>>
>>> Who or what is Brader?
>>
>> Hello. <tap tap tap> Is this newsgroup arriving in your newsreader?
>
> It is. Please answer the question.

The answer is in the newsgroup. Does your newsreader display authors
or posters? I think I have seen that in illustrations of Forte
screens.

/dps

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

On Wed, 04 May 2022 17:30:48 -0700
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:

> Quinn C speculated:
> > * Sam Plusnet:
> >
> >> On 04-May-22 13:24, Quinn C wrote:
> >>> * Ruud Harmsen: 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).
> >>>
> >> Well, you might have meant this Locke
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Locke
> >>
> >> I do know this is a complete swerve, but his biography starts with the
> >> words:
> >>
> >> "Born in Derry, Ireland,[1] he was the son of a butcher and cattle
> >> dealer..."
> >>
> >> Doesn't this at least suggest that his mother was a butcher & his father
> >> a cattle dealer (or vice versa)?
> >
> > No. You seem to have added an "a" before "cattle" in your mind.
>
> Still, I get Sam's point. With applause.
>
>
> [As a matter of tidiness, if the "[1]" is the citation for being born
> in Derry, I think it should have been before the comma. I will,
> however, forgo the WP edit.]
>
> /dps
>
It's geographically correct. A Loyalist might say that Londonderry is in Northern Ireland, part of the [1]United Kingdom.
(Also be careful how you spell whisk(e)y.)

[1] - increasingly less so IMO.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 05/05/22 15:44, Snidely wrote:
> Ruud Harmsen speculated:
>> Wed, 4 May 2022 15:04:21 -0600: lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> scribeva:
>>> On 2022-05-04 11:26, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Despite Brader.
>>>>
>>>> Who or what is Brader?
>>>
>>> Hello. <tap tap tap> Is this newsgroup arriving in your newsreader?
>>
>> It is. Please answer the question.
>
> The answer is in the newsgroup. Does your newsreader display authors or
> posters? I think I have seen that in illustrations of Forte screens.

The answer lies in the soil.

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

On Thu, 5 May 2022 18:08:41 +1000
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 05/05/22 15:44, Snidely wrote:
> > Ruud Harmsen speculated:
> >> Wed, 4 May 2022 15:04:21 -0600: lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> scribeva:
> >>> On 2022-05-04 11:26, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Despite Brader.
> >>>>
> >>>> Who or what is Brader?
> >>>
> >>> Hello. <tap tap tap> Is this newsgroup arriving in your newsreader?
> >>
> >> It is. Please answer the question.
> >
> > The answer is in the newsgroup. Does your newsreader display authors or
> > posters? I think I have seen that in illustrations of Forte screens.
>
> The answer lies in the soil.
>
Compost Corner? (hack ptui)

for those not childish enough in the 70's:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiswas#Overview
(7th paragraph)

and for phlegm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carolgees#Spit_the_Dog

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 2022-05-05, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 05/05/22 02:18, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2022-05-04 04:19, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>>> Indeed. They are, of course, members of our parliament, but they
>>> are not Members of Parliament. In the UK, case can matter a *lot*.
>>
>> How very Linux.
>
> Writing that used both upper-case and lower-case characters became
> fashionable many centuries ago. It continued that way until FORTRAN was
> invented.

"Consistently separating words by spaces became a general custom about
the tenth century A. D., and lasted until about 1957, when FORTRAN
abandoned the practice." (Sun FORTRAN Reference Manual)

--
Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but
that's not why we do it. ---Richard Feynman

On 2022-05-04, Tony Cooper wrote:

> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:34:28 +0100, Richard Heathfield
><rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 04/05/2022 5:19 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 16:46:59 +0100, Richard Heathfield
>>> <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/05/2022 2:48 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:41:37 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <53b24360-27e5-4cc3-8456-15e74585a7f7n@googlegroups.com>, Peter
>>>>>> T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>, Peter T. Daniels
>>>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German
>>>>>>>>>>>> system, you elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head
>>>>>>>>>>>> of government should be very much aligned with the party and
>>>>>>>>>>>> its platform, or it's confusing.
>>>>>>>>>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>>>>>>>>>> scribeva:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That part of the American system is supposed to separate
>>>>>>>>>>> legislative & executive powers from each other >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (unlike "prime
>>>>>>>>>>> minister" systems)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
>>>>>>>>>> cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
>>>>>>>> when they are members of the House of Lords.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The House of Lords is the second tier of Parliamant - you have congress &
>>>>>> the Senate. The term "Member of Parliament" only applies to elected
>>>>>> members of the House of Commons.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are making the same mistake that PTD is making. The US "congress"
>>>>> is both houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both a
>>>>> Senator and a Representative are members of Congress.
>>>>
>>>> You are mistaken. The mistake you are making is failing to
>>>> distinguish between "member of parliament", which lords are, and
>>>> "Member of Parliament", which lords are most certainly not. Case
>>>> matters.
>>>
>>> No, I haven't made that mistake, and wouldn't make that mistake.
>>
>>I believe you, of course, but I honestly read it as if you had,
>>so may I venture to suggest that your phrasing is at least a
>>little ambigulous™?
>
> You can suggest that, but - if you do - you might want to provide a
> reason that the suggestion has some basis.
>
> What could you read in my statement that gives any indication that I
> was referring to Parliament/parliament or mentioned
> Parliament/parliament?
>
> The mistake Charles made was in saying "you have congress & the
> Senate". The US "congress" is both houses: Senate and House of
> Representatives just as "parliament" is both houses: Lords and
> Commons.

But if someone says "I'm going to complain to my congressmen [or
congresswoman]" by default that refers to a member of the House of
Representatives, doesn't it?

> Please be assured that if you contradict me or say that I am wrong,
> that I will not killfile you...even if you conclusively prove that I
> am wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>
>

--
Come Susy dear, let's take a walk,
just out there upon the beach.

On 05/05/22 20:06, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2022 18:08:41 +1000
> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/22 15:44, Snidely wrote:
>>> Ruud Harmsen speculated:
>>>> Wed, 4 May 2022 15:04:21 -0600: lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> scribeva:
>>>>> On 2022-05-04 11:26, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Despite Brader.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who or what is Brader?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello. <tap tap tap> Is this newsgroup arriving in your newsreader?
>>>>
>>>> It is. Please answer the question.
>>>
>>> The answer is in the newsgroup. Does your newsreader display authors or
>>> posters? I think I have seen that in illustrations of Forte screens.
>>
>> The answer lies in the soil.
>>
> Compost Corner? (hack ptui)
>
> for those not childish enough in the 70's:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiswas#Overview
> (7th paragraph)
>
> and for phlegm:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carolgees#Spit_the_Dog

I don't recognise either of those. I was thinking of a gardening program
on radio, many years ago, and the pronouncements of the slow-talking
presenter.

Or just possibly I was remembering "Beyond Our Ken" (1958-64).

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

On 5/4/2022 3:04 PM, Mark Brader wrote:

C.D. Bellemare:
>>>> In English, the Conservatives are the CPC federally, the PCP
>>>> ("Progressive") in many provinces, and the UCP ("United") in
>>>> Alberta.

Mark Brader:
>>> In my Canada, I have never encountered "PCP" as a political
>>> abbreviation. The provincial Progressive Conservative Parties
>>> are just "the Conservatives" or "the PCs", while the federal one
>>> (no longer "Progressive") is just "the Conservatives", unless
>>> the full names need to be spelled out.

C.D. Bellemare:
>> Yes, the "P" standing for "Party" is often left off...

> I claim that it's not there in the first place, as that abbreviation
> does not exist.

Mark forgot to mark this one "C.D. Bellemare:"
>> but the different names still distinguish one level from another. I
>> think the context, now snipped, was the confusion of federal with
>> provincial parties.

> Obviously they can be distinguished if necessary.

I have certainly heard it used. Sorry, I can't provide citations; the
hits I find have "Party" spelled out.

I may obsess about political commentary more than the average bear.

On 05/05/2022 11:32, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 05/05/22 20:06, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 May 2022 18:08:41 +1000
>> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>>> The answer lies in the soil.
>>>
>> Compost Corner? (hack ptui)
>>
>
> I don't recognise either of those. I was thinking of a gardening program
> on radio, many years ago, and the pronouncements of the slow-talking
> presenter.
>
> Or just possibly I was remembering "Beyond Our Ken" (1958-64).
>
Kenny Williams as Arthur Fallowfield - that's where I remember it from.

--
Ray
UK

On 5/4/2022 10:32 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> 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"?

Ong frongsay, mind. She's from Nova Scotia and Toronto.

They may want to assure the audience that they don't screw with the
questions. That may even be true.

On 5/5/2022 1:07 AM, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> : 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.

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

> Strange, very strange.

The idea is that they should be able to answer questions in the House.

* Peter Moylan:

> On 05/05/22 00:09, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:16:19 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 04/05/22 01:19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Founders saw how badly the parliamentary system was doing in
>>>> Britain in their day, so they came up with something far better
>>>> -- three separate branches, with "checks and balances." Their
>>>> judgment was only confirmed by the dismal performances of
>>>> parliamentary systems in the 20th and 21st centuries.
>>>
>>> I presume that the original concept included the idea that the
>>> judiciary would be independent of the two political branches. There
>>> must have been a time, then, when politicians were unable to
>>> influence appointments to the highest court in the land. When did
>>> that go wrong?
>>
>> With the nomination of Robert Bork.
>>
>> That fiasco paved the way for Antonin Scalia's unanimous (or nearly
>> so) confirmation.
>
> What you need is a constitutional amendment that makes it illegal for a
> president to nominate a judge candidate, and also makes it illegal for
> senators to attend the confirmation hearings. Only then will you ensure
> a separation of powers.

The highest court in Germany has two sets of 8 judges, and they have
both term limits and age limits, so there's about two judges to replace
every year. The suggestions are alternated between the larger parties in
parliament, and between the two houses. Each judge needs to be elected
with 2/3 of the votes. Those rules, while similar in principle to the
American system, avoid many of its extreme tendencies.

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

On Thu, 05 May 2022 11:19:47 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2022-05-04, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:34:28 +0100, Richard Heathfield
>><rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 04/05/2022 5:19 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 16:46:59 +0100, Richard Heathfield
>>>> <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 04/05/2022 2:48 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:41:37 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <53b24360-27e5-4cc3-8456-15e74585a7f7n@googlegroups.com>, Peter
>>>>>>> T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>, Peter T. Daniels
>>>>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German
>>>>>>>>>>>>> system, you elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of government should be very much aligned with the party and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its platform, or it's confusing.
>>>>>>>>>>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> scribeva:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That part of the American system is supposed to separate
>>>>>>>>>>>> legislative & executive powers from each other >>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (unlike "prime
>>>>>>>>>>>> minister" systems)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
>>>>>>>>>>> cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime >>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
>>>>>>>>> when they are members of the House of Lords.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The House of Lords is the second tier of Parliamant - you have congress &
>>>>>>> the Senate. The term "Member of Parliament" only applies to elected
>>>>>>> members of the House of Commons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are making the same mistake that PTD is making. The US "congress"
>>>>>> is both houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both a
>>>>>> Senator and a Representative are members of Congress.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are mistaken. The mistake you are making is failing to
>>>>> distinguish between "member of parliament", which lords are, and
>>>>> "Member of Parliament", which lords are most certainly not. Case
>>>>> matters.
>>>>
>>>> No, I haven't made that mistake, and wouldn't make that mistake.
>>>
>>>I believe you, of course, but I honestly read it as if you had,
>>>so may I venture to suggest that your phrasing is at least a
>>>little ambigulous??
>>
>> You can suggest that, but - if you do - you might want to provide a
>> reason that the suggestion has some basis.
>>
>> What could you read in my statement that gives any indication that I
>> was referring to Parliament/parliament or mentioned
>> Parliament/parliament?
>>
>> The mistake Charles made was in saying "you have congress & the
>> Senate". The US "congress" is both houses: Senate and House of
>> Representatives just as "parliament" is both houses: Lords and
>> Commons.
>
>But if someone says "I'm going to complain to my congressmen [or
>congresswoman]" by default that refers to a member of the House of
>Representatives, doesn't it?
>

It wouldn't have that default to me.

This page provides guidance:

https://classroom.synonym.com/file-letter-complaint-congressman-11940.html

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On 2022-05-05 06:05, CDB wrote:
> On 5/4/2022 10:32 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> 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"?
>
> Ong frongsay, mind.  She's from Nova Scotia and Toronto.

I guessed the answer, not because I knew the line, but because it was
obviously French. I knew I had a chance of being wrong, as I have no
idea how many other national anthems are in, or have a translation to
that language.

> They may want to assure the audience that they don't screw with the
> questions.  That may even be true.

I think game show producers have been hypersensitive to any form of
cheating or bias toward successful contestants since the /$64,000
Question/ scandal.

On 2022-05-05, Tony Cooper wrote:

> On Thu, 05 May 2022 11:19:47 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-05-04, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:34:28 +0100, Richard Heathfield
>>><rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 04/05/2022 5:19 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 16:46:59 +0100, Richard Heathfield
>>>>> <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/05/2022 2:48 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:41:37 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <53b24360-27e5-4cc3-8456-15e74585a7f7n@googlegroups.com>, Peter
>>>>>>>> T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>, Peter T. Daniels
>>>>>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system, you elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of government should be very much aligned with the party and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its platform, or it's confusing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> scribeva:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part of the American system is supposed to separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislative & executive powers from each other >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (unlike "prime
>>>>>>>>>>>>> minister" systems)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime >>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
>>>>>>>>>> when they are members of the House of Lords.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The House of Lords is the second tier of Parliamant - you have congress &
>>>>>>>> the Senate. The term "Member of Parliament" only applies to elected
>>>>>>>> members of the House of Commons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are making the same mistake that PTD is making. The US "congress"
>>>>>>> is both houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both a
>>>>>>> Senator and a Representative are members of Congress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are mistaken. The mistake you are making is failing to
>>>>>> distinguish between "member of parliament", which lords are, and
>>>>>> "Member of Parliament", which lords are most certainly not. Case
>>>>>> matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I haven't made that mistake, and wouldn't make that mistake.
>>>>
>>>>I believe you, of course, but I honestly read it as if you had,
>>>>so may I venture to suggest that your phrasing is at least a
>>>>little ambigulous??
>>>
>>> You can suggest that, but - if you do - you might want to provide a
>>> reason that the suggestion has some basis.
>>>
>>> What could you read in my statement that gives any indication that I
>>> was referring to Parliament/parliament or mentioned
>>> Parliament/parliament?
>>>
>>> The mistake Charles made was in saying "you have congress & the
>>> Senate". The US "congress" is both houses: Senate and House of
>>> Representatives just as "parliament" is both houses: Lords and
>>> Commons.
>>
>>But if someone says "I'm going to complain to my congressmen [or
>>congresswoman]" by default that refers to a member of the House of
>>Representatives, doesn't it?
>>
>
> It wouldn't have that default to me.
>
> This page provides guidance:
>
> https://classroom.synonym.com/file-letter-complaint-congressman-11940.html

OK, fair point.

--
Musicians can run this state better than politicians. We won't get a
lot done in the mornings, but we'll work late and be honest.
---Kinky Friedman

On Thu, 05 May 2022 14:49:42 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2022-05-05, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 May 2022 11:19:47 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2022-05-04, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:34:28 +0100, Richard Heathfield
>>>><rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 04/05/2022 5:19 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 16:46:59 +0100, Richard Heathfield
>>>>>> <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/05/2022 2:48 pm, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 May 2022 09:41:37 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <53b24360-27e5-4cc3-8456-15e74585a7f7n@googlegroups.com>, Peter
>>>>>>>>> T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <dfeda865-f660-4e1c...@googlegroups.com>, Peter T. Daniels
>>>>>>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 1:24:58 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-02, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system, you elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of government should be very much aligned with the party and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its platform, or it's confusing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tue, 03 May 2022 16:02:55 +0100: Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scribeva:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Screwing with the attributions again (or still).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part of the American system is supposed to separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislative & executive powers from each other >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (unlike "prime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minister" systems)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Properly separating them is possible there too: executive for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cabinet (secreraries of state and ministers, presided by the prime >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> minister), legislative by parliament (usually two chambers).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How often are those cabinet secretaries not MPs?
>>>>>>>>>>> when they are members of the House of Lords.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Lords doesn't count as a House of Parliament?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The House of Lords is the second tier of Parliamant - you have congress &
>>>>>>>>> the Senate. The term "Member of Parliament" only applies to elected
>>>>>>>>> members of the House of Commons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are making the same mistake that PTD is making. The US "congress"
>>>>>>>> is both houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both a
>>>>>>>> Senator and a Representative are members of Congress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are mistaken. The mistake you are making is failing to
>>>>>>> distinguish between "member of parliament", which lords are, and
>>>>>>> "Member of Parliament", which lords are most certainly not. Case
>>>>>>> matters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I haven't made that mistake, and wouldn't make that mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe you, of course, but I honestly read it as if you had,
>>>>>so may I venture to suggest that your phrasing is at least a
>>>>>little ambigulous??
>>>>
>>>> You can suggest that, but - if you do - you might want to provide a
>>>> reason that the suggestion has some basis.
>>>>
>>>> What could you read in my statement that gives any indication that I
>>>> was referring to Parliament/parliament or mentioned
>>>> Parliament/parliament?
>>>>
>>>> The mistake Charles made was in saying "you have congress & the
>>>> Senate". The US "congress" is both houses: Senate and House of
>>>> Representatives just as "parliament" is both houses: Lords and
>>>> Commons.
>>>
>>>But if someone says "I'm going to complain to my congressmen [or
>>>congresswoman]" by default that refers to a member of the House of
>>>Representatives, doesn't it?
>>>
>>
>> It wouldn't have that default to me.
>>
>> This page provides guidance:
>>
>> https://classroom.synonym.com/file-letter-complaint-congressman-11940.html
>
>OK, fair point.

By the way...I took your question to be an "in general" question. If
that "someone" was me, "my congressperson" is Representative Stephanie
Murphy.

That's a personal answer, because I think that Murphy would actually
be responsive. Neither of the two Senators from Florida - Scott or
Rubio - would be responsive.

If that "someone" was a Miami resident, Rubio might be their
congressman.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On 2022-05-03, CDB wrote:

> On 5/3/2022 11:19 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> Quinn C wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>> Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>> CDB wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Registering as a "party-supporter" in the US allows you to
>>>>>> vote in the primaries that determine who that party's
>>>>>> candidate will be; it does not commit you to vote for the
>>>>>> candidate. Tony has long been a registered Republican, but
>>>>>> has said here that he has not voted for their candidate for a
>>>>>> long time.
>>>>> I understand that is how it is done, but I still find it odd
>>>>> that a 'government' should have reason to keep a register of
>>>>> party affiliation.
>>>> It's "the government" -- usually a county Board of Elections --
>>>> that administers elections (subject to the supervision of,
>>>> usually, the state's Secretary of State). How could they do that
>>>> if they didn't know who was qualified to receive which party's
>>>> ballot during the voting in the primary?
>
>>> Which raises the question: Did Trump become president because a
>>> bunch of Democrats registered as Republicans in an attempt to
>>> sabotage the Republican Party by voting for the candidate they
>>> thought couldn't possibly win?
>
>> That would have required planning many months ahead to change party
>> registration, in many states. Consult the polls in the early- primary
>> states.
>
>>> In the American system, there's no good reason for the President to
>>> be affiliated with a party in the first place. In the German
>>> system, you elect a party to govern, not a person, so the head of
>>> government should be very much aligned with the party and its
>>> platform, or it's confusing.
>
>> The Founders saw how badly the parliamentary system was doing in
>> Britain in their day, so they came up with something far better --
>> three separate branches, with "checks and balances."
>
> The modern parliamentary system could still be improved, but it works
> well enough. The system your founders recoiled from is long gone.
>
> It seems to me that any reasonable system of democratic government will
> work well if its electorate is engaged and competent (rational,
> public-spirited, and well-informed). That seems to be less the case
> now, in all or most of our countries, than it was fifty years ago.

IMO:

Principled politicians are at a disadvantage because they don't like
to lie. Unprincipled ones will say anything people want to hear.

And big business has far too much influence.

>> Their judgment was only confirmed by the dismal performances of
>> parliamentary systems in the 20th and 21st centuries.
>
> You seem to have trumped their performance these days. And just wait
> till 2024.
>
>> "Coalitions"???
>

--
So I'm packing my bags for the Misty Mountains

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 5:02:34 PM UTC-4, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-05-04 11:25, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Wed, 4 May 2022 08:24:05 -0400: Quinn C
> > <lispa...@crommatograph.info> scribeva:
> >> * Ruud Harmsen:
> >>> Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

[No, he did not]
> >>>>>> That part of the American system is supposed to separate legislative &
> >>>>>> executive powers from each other (unlike "prime minister" systems)
> >>>>>> as
> >>>>>> well as from the judicial powers. (IIRC this comes from Montesquieu's
> >>>>>> ideas in _L'Esprit des Lois_.)
> >>>> 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).
> > Don't care, looks like American politics, I don't follow that.
>
> John Locke. English philosopher and political theorist, I suspect. Far
> from 'American politics'.

lar3 trumpets his ignorance once again.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 5:22:00 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:24:11 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Ruud Harmsen:
> >>> Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "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. They seem to believe that long streaks are good for
ratings, but in fact they're boring.

It was shocking last night that no one knew (NASA shmASA) that
Apollo's twin sister is Artemis, or who Peter Stuyvesant was (never
mind the portrait, "handed NY over to the Brits" was enough).

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 5:48:07 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2022 13:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:24:26 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> > > In order to say that a "handful" are involved, you must have some
> > > information which you haven't shared with us.
> > > Or you are just making it up as you go?
> > How many of the 65,000,000 or so Brits are paying members of
> > a political party?
>
> Oh sorry, yes, it's 5. Or could you be Wrong??!

So you have no idea, and simply don't want to admit that I have a point?
> --
> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:53:06 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 05/05/22 00:09, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:00:34 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 04/05/22 01:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> Who administers an election? How do they know who is qualified
> >>> to vote and who isn't? How many candidates are allowed in any
> >>> one contest? Who decides that the Tinfoil Hats Against Aliens
> >>> Party probably shouldn't be on the ballot?
> >> Answering that last part for Australia: nobody prevents the Tinfoil
> >> Hats party from running. If they can't get enough votes they will
> >> lost their deposit, but blocking any party from running would be
> >> seen as anti-democratic.
> > But how do they get on the ballot? Do they just need to say "I want
> > to be on the ballot"?
>
> They have to have the signatures of 100 supporters who are eligible to
> vote, and they have to be able to prove that they are qualified in terms
> of citizenship, etc. They also have to provide a $2000 deposit. The
> deposit is returned if they get at least 4% of first preference votes.

"100" for whichever office it is? That's a very small number. "$2000"
looks like a lot.

> That's for a candidate for the House of Representatives who is not a
> nominee of a registered political party. Parties nominate a collection
> of candidates in bulk, but I have not looked up those details. Nor have
> I looked up the Senate rules.

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.

> In my electorate, seven of the candidates have been nominated by seven
> political parties, and two independents are also standing.
>
> Our present government has made itself unpopular, and the main
> opposition party has drifted to the right, so there will almost
> certainly be increased votes for independents and the minor parties.

Here's hoping!

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 9:15:58 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 05/05/22 06:16, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:56:23 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> >> Spoiler candidates were mentioned here a short while back. Someone
> >> once changed their name to "Edward Heath" by deed poll and stood
> >> against the 'real' Edward Heath (the leader of the Conservative
> >> Party & subsequently the Prime Minister) in his Bexley Heath
> >> constituency. Since the candidate's name alone appeared on the
> >> ballot paper, the only way to distinguish between them was the
> >> order in which the names appeared.
> > Which one came first?
> > Over Here, the order of candidates varies from E.D. to E.D., so as
> > to minimize selection bias (top of the list, alphabetical, etc.).
>
> Here, the electoral officer for an electorate puts the names of the
> candidates into a hat (or the equivalent), and the order of drawing them
> out determines their order on the ballot paper.

So long as (for the same list) each electorate sees them in a different
order. Our E.D.s are around 200 voters each.