On 2022-05-04 04:19, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 04/05/2022 11:05 am, Janet wrote:
>> In article <53b24360-27e5-4cc3-8456-15e74585a7f7n@googlegroups.com>,
>> grammatim@verizon.net says...
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>>    You asked about MP's. Members of the HOL are not titled or referred to
>> as MP's. Any who were previously MP's, lose that title when they join
>> the HOL.
>>     Janet
>
> 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.

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
have not distinguished between a "member of Parliament" and a "Member
of Parliament". I have not used either phrase.

My comment above pertains only to the US House of Representatives and
US Senate and that "Congress", in the US, refers to both houses.

I fully understand the use of uppercase letters.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

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™?

--
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 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.

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.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

* Peter T. Daniels:

> 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"?

Well, in Germany, to my best knowledge, you'd have to submit an
application that you - party XY - want to take part in election E and
these are your candidates. Then they'll check some criteria for
eligibility, and you're in if you pass those. Nobody just "stays" on the
ballot, there has to be an application for each election (I mean, you
have to list your candidates, so duh.)

By the way, I just read that being a member of the party isn't a
requirement for being a candidate for the party. I've mentioned the
"Free Voters Associations" before that often are on municipal ballots -
these aren't parties, and their candidates are usually independent, so
the name is just the name of a common list of candidates who intend to
work together.

--
.... speaking the right words might not make you a good person,
but the wrong ones have real and destructive consequences.
-- Philip Sayers, The Walrus, Jan. 2020

* CDB:

> On 5/3/2022 5:24 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> charles wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>> 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 point remains. Our cabinet secretaries are (normally) chosen to
>> be experts in the relevant fields -- e.g. Obama's Energy Secretary
>> was a Nobel-laureate physicist -- and being constrained to just
>> Members of the Government (of the ruling party, no less) constrains
>> the choice unnecessarily,.
>
> Why God made Deputy Ministers.

Agreed. Ministers are figureheads, which is clear from them getting
shuffled around from one portfolio to an unrelated one. They're experts
in politics, not necessarily in the field they ad-minister. Although it
can be good for an office to sometimes have experts run it.

--
Sure, everybody has the right to speak their opinion; but not
the right to identify this opinion as truth, and erect pyres
for dissenters.
-- Hedwig Dohm (1903), my translation

* Peter T. Daniels:

> 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. Despite Brader.

That's common practice, but not "the law". I diverge from it when there
are important reasons, but such are rare.

--
The trouble some people have being German, I thought,
I have being human.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.130

Wed, 4 May 2022 22:11:15 +1000: Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> scribeva:

>On 04/05/22 21:58, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@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?
>
>I haven't checked, but it is at least possible that your quoting style
>triggers a bug in Google Groups' "hide quoted text" algorithm. I rather
>doubt it, though, because it's a hard thing to get wrong.

Checked that, and no, GG displays my message as I meant it, and as it
should.

>I can't think of any other grounds for the accusation, though.

Charles said:

>>>>>> The House of Lords is the second tier of Parliamant [...]
>>>>>

Tony said:

>>>>> You are making the same mistake that PTD is making. [...]

I said:

>>>> 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.
>>>

Tony said:

>>> No, I haven't made that mistake, and wouldn't make that mistake.
>>

I said:

>> 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™?
>

Tony said:

> You can suggest that, but - if you do - you might want to provide a
> reason that the suggestion has some basis.

No, thanks. I'm Just Plain Wrong. I've re-read it and there is
simply no case to answer. Above, I have snipped and slashed in an
attempt to remove the bits that prove you *right*, in order to
emphasise the bits that led me to jump to my hasty conclusion.
Had I read the rest (the now elided text) more carefully, I would
not have said "you are mistaken".

> Please be assured that if you contradict me or say that I am wrong,
> that I will not killfile you

I'm delighted to hear it, as that's a terrible reason for killfiling.

> ...even if you conclusively prove that I
> am wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Well short of even the slightest of shadows. The error happened
right here at my desk.

--
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

Wed, 4 May 2022 07:28:17 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:11:23 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 04/05/22 21:58, 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?
>> I haven't checked, but it is at least possible that your quoting style
>> triggers a bug in Google Groups' "hide quoted text" algorithm. I rather
>> doubt it, though, because it's a hard thing to get wrong.
>>
>> I can't think of any other grounds for the accusation, though.
>
>Four lines of attributions, four lines of text, then another attribution
>-- which is thenceforth hidden within the mass of lines -- then text.

What???

This is what I posted (quoted directly from Google Groups):

== start of quote ==
>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:
>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).

In the Netherlands, the separation is not ideal, in that the
legislative powers are shared by parliament and government, because
the King is formally part of the government (but he doesn't have any
real power), and he has to sign any new laws (including laws that
stipulate how to amend or enhance existing laws).
== end of quote ==

So that is the date and author, then what that person wrote (the part
that is relevant for my reply), then a blank line, then another date
and author, then what that person wrote (the part that is relevant for
my reply), followed by a separating blank line, and my comments.

What could be clearer, what could be neater, what could be better? I
really don't understand what PTD is whining about. Perhaps he needs
better glasses, or he should wipe his screen?

Wed, 4 May 2022 08:24:05 -0400: Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> scribeva:

>* Ruud Harmsen:
>
>> Tue, 3 May 2022 10:32:05 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>>>> >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?
>>
>> Only if demissionary (sent away, but not yet replaced), otherwise
>> never. The Netherlands is not the UK, where I think that is possible
>> and usual.
>
>In Germany, there's no requirement for cabinet ministers to be MPs, but
>by force of habit, 80% of them are.

Are, or were, until taking office?

>The rest come e.g. from state-level
>politics or very occasionally, were experts like university professors.
>
>One of the more famous examples of the latter is Rita Süssmuth, who
>later was a candidate in my district. But she went from university
>professor to cabinet minister straight to President of the Bundestag.
>Rumors said she was so popular that she was seen as a threat to more
>established politicians and therefore parked in this very honorable but
>less influential position.
>
>>>> In the Netherlands, the separation is not ideal, in that the
>>>> legislative powers are shared by parliament and government, because
>>>> the King is formally part of the government (but he doesn't have any
>>>> real power), and he has to sign any new laws (including laws that
>>>> stipulate how to amend or enhance existing laws).
>>>>
>>>> >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. I don't
know what a "winning streak" is either, and I don't feel like looking
it up.

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?

In article <g3b57ht1eihjkf447nqh1sb8nef0ul89ii@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> 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.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I'lll try not to comment on US
politics again.

> 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.

>

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Wed, 04 May 2022 18:26:46 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>In article <g3b57ht1eihjkf447nqh1sb8nef0ul89ii@4ax.com>,
> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> 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.
>
>Thank you for pointing out my error. I'lll try not to comment on US
>politics again.
>
Oh, no! Please continue to comment on US politics. Intersperse your
comments with errors. If there's not something wrong on the Internet,
what would we have to talk about?

Errors, when writing of some other country's system of doing things,
are quite forgivable. What is not as forgivable is the assumption
that the other country is doing it wrong because the other country has
a different system. You have not engaged in that.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:11:34 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * CDB:
> > On 5/3/2022 5:24 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> charles wrote:
> >>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>>>> 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 point remains. Our cabinet secretaries are (normally) chosen to
> >> be experts in the relevant fields -- e.g. Obama's Energy Secretary
> >> was a Nobel-laureate physicist -- and being constrained to just
> >> Members of the Government (of the ruling party, no less) constrains
> >> the choice unnecessarily,.
> >
> > Why God made Deputy Ministers.
> Agreed. Ministers are figureheads, which is clear from them getting
> shuffled around from one portfolio to an unrelated one. They're experts
> in politics, not necessarily in the field they ad-minister. Although it
> can be good for an office to sometimes have experts run it.

Reagan and T**** made politicians cabinet secretaries. So we got
born-again James Watt (not the steam engine guy) at Interior, who
said we don't need to worry about the environment because the
Rapture is nigh; and Betsy de Vos at Education, whose sole mission
was to get around the First Amendment and provide government
funding to religious schools.

Not to mention Elaine Chao, who was given more than one department
by Dubya and T**** and just happens to be Mrs. Mitch McConnell.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:23:11 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 4 May 2022 07:28:17 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 8:11:23 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> On 04/05/22 21:58, 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?
> >> I haven't checked, but it is at least possible that your quoting style
> >> triggers a bug in Google Groups' "hide quoted text" algorithm. I rather
> >> doubt it, though, because it's a hard thing to get wrong.
> >> I can't think of any other grounds for the accusation, though.
> >Four lines of attributions, four lines of text, then another attribution
> >-- which is thenceforth hidden within the mass of lines -- then text.
>
> What???
>
> This is what I posted (quoted directly from Google Groups):
>
> What could be clearer, what could be neater, what could be better? I
> really don't understand what PTD is whining about. Perhaps he needs
> better glasses, or he should wipe his screen?

People do not normally read through the attributions. If you need to
know who wrote a line, you count its chevrons and look up for an
attribution with one fewer.

If text is embedded within the list of attributions, it will simply be
skipped over when the attributions are ignored. It's conceivable
that occasionally some piece of such text might be useful for
clarifying what follows.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:47:09 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Oh, no! Please continue to comment on US politics. Intersperse your
> comments with errors. If there's not something wrong on the Internet,
> what would we have to talk about?

Easy. You'll claim that someone made an error who didn't.

> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
>
> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

Of whom?

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.

> 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.
--
Mark Brader | The "I didn't think of that" type of failure occurs because
Toronto | I didn't think of that, and the reason I didn't think of it
msb@vex.net | is because it never occurred to me. If we'd been able to
| think of 'em, we would have. -- John W. Campbell

On 03-May-22 17:01, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2022 08:29:06 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:53:19 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 02-May-22 23:40, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 1:54:16 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> In the UK, the local branch of a party chooses who their candidate
>>> should be.
>>
>> We used to do it that way. I was home sick from school one day
>> in 1964 and the NYS Democratic Convention was on TV, and I
>> watched them nominate Robert F. Kennedy for US Senator from
>> New York. Eventually, the system was changed so that candidates
>> had to demonstrate their worth to voters during a campaign.
>>
>>> The procedure the party uses to select that candidate is entirely up to
>>> them. I assume they will canvass the opinions of all the local party
>>> members, but they do whatever they think best.
>>
>> By which you mean the handful who have paid the fee mentioned
>> yesterday?

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?

--
Sam Plusnet

On 04-May-22 19:47, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Oh, no! Please continue to comment on US politics. Intersperse your
> comments with errors. If there's not something wrong on the Internet,
> what would we have to talk about?

D. Trump is still President.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 04-May-22 18:11, Quinn C wrote:
> Agreed. Ministers are figureheads, which is clear from them getting
> shuffled around from one portfolio to an unrelated one. They're experts
> in politics, not necessarily in the field they ad-minister. Although it
> can be good for an office to sometimes have experts run it.

The civil servants, who really run a ministry, are generally horrified
at the prospect of a Minister who has some understanding of their brief.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 04-May-22 6:48, Snidely wrote:

> What the Founding Fathers got really wrong, though, was the idea that
> there wouldn't be political parties.

Strange, since (from my POV) political parties seem to be deeply
embedded in the US election process.

In the UK, the ballot paper used to only identify the individual
candidates by name. Adding text like "The Labour Party Candidate" etc.
and thus recognising party affiliation, is a comparatively recent[1]
innovation.

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.

[1] OK, 1970 _is_ fairly recent when discussing UK elections.

--
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)?

--
Sam Plusnet

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:24:26 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 03-May-22 17:01, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 May 2022 08:29:06 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:53:19 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >>> On 02-May-22 23:40, Quinn C wrote:
> >>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 1:54:16 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> >>>>>> 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?
> >>> In the UK, the local branch of a party chooses who their candidate
> >>> should be.
> >> We used to do it that way. I was home sick from school one day
> >> in 1964 and the NYS Democratic Convention was on TV, and I
> >> watched them nominate Robert F. Kennedy for US Senator from
> >> New York. Eventually, the system was changed so that candidates
> >> had to demonstrate their worth to voters during a campaign.
> >>> The procedure the party uses to select that candidate is entirely up to
> >>> them. I assume they will canvass the opinions of all the local party
> >>> members, but they do whatever they think best.
> >> By which you mean the handful who have paid the fee mentioned
> >> yesterday?
>
> 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?

On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:56:23 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 04-May-22 6:48, Snidely wrote:

> > What the Founding Fathers got really wrong, though, was the idea that
> > there wouldn't be political parties.
>
> Strange, since (from my POV) political parties seem to be deeply
> embedded in the US election process.

They were not contemplated in 1787.

They had developed in time for the 1800 election.

> In the UK, the ballot paper used to only identify the individual
> candidates by name. Adding text like "The Labour Party Candidate" etc.
> and thus recognising party affiliation, is a comparatively recent[1]
> innovation.
>
> 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.).

> [1] OK, 1970 _is_ fairly recent when discussing UK elections.

In the first free election in South Africa after the freeing of Mandela,
each candidate's portrait appeared beside his name on the ballot, as
well as a party symbol.

The WBEZ (Chicago NPR) reporting team that covered the election
brought back a stack of ballot papers and used them for premiums
in fundraising for a while after.