Discussion:
lips to tell lies
(too old to reply)
Yurui Liu
2021-01-19 08:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?

Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.

I'd appreciate your help.
Ken Blake
2021-01-19 14:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences clumsy, It
would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should be put in jail."


Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
--
Ken
Ken Blake
2021-01-19 14:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences clumsy, It
would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should be put in jail."
Word omitted. That should be "would be better."
Post by Ken Blake
Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
--
Ken
Lewis
2021-01-19 15:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences clumsy, It
would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should be put in jail."
Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
How do you know when a politician is lying?

His lips are moving.
--
'You have the right to remain silent,' he [Carrot] said. 'You have
the right not to injure yourself falling down the steps on the
way to the cells. You have the right not to jump out of high
windows. You do not have to say anything, you see, but anything
you do say, well, I have to take it down and it might be used as
evidence.' --Guards! Guards!
Quinn C
2021-01-19 17:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences clumsy, It
would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should be put in jail."
Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
That's why we need women in power.
--
CW: Historical misogyny
... gurve nirentr fvmr erznvaf fb zhpu fznyyre; fb gung gur fhz
gbgny bs sbbq pbairegrq vagb gubhtug ol jbzra pna arire rdhny
[gung bs] zra. Vg sbyybjf gurersber, gung zra jvyy nyjnlf guvax
zber guna jbzra. -- M.A. Hardaker in Popular Science (1881)
Tony Cooper
2021-01-19 20:08:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:22:08 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences clumsy, It
would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should be put in jail."
Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
That's why we need women in power.
That has been a joke over the years, but it seems not to be a joke any
longer.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Madhu
2021-01-20 03:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:22:08 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
That's why we need women in power.
That has been a joke over the years, but it seems not to be a joke any
longer.
The misogyny stereotypes were traditionally those that associated women
with lying and dishonesty - these slurs were readily applied and
transferred to politicians (and lawyers) when they became available.
with the new suggestion the joke will come full circle

--
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him.
-- Numbers 31:17
Lewis
2021-01-20 12:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:22:08 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences clumsy, It
would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should be put in jail."
Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
That's why we need women in power.
That has been a joke over the years, but it seems not to be a joke any
longer.
It's gone well for the Kiwis, but very poorly for the UK.
--
'We get that in here some nights, when someone's had a few. Cosmic
speculation about whether the gods exist. Next thing, there's a
bolt of lightning through the door with a note wrapped round it
saying, "Yes, we do" and a pair of sandals with smoke coming
out.' (Small Gods)
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-01-20 15:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:22:08 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences
clumsy, It would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should
be put in jail."
Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
That's why we need women in power.
That has been a joke over the years, but it seems not to be a joke
any longer.
It's gone well for the Kiwis, but very poorly for the UK.
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto


add others here:

oh yes, Angela Merkel.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-20 17:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:22:08 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences
clumsy, It would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should
be put in jail."
Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
That's why we need women in power.
That has been a joke over the years, but it seems not to be a joke
any longer.
It's gone well for the Kiwis, but very poorly for the UK.
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Of these, Angela Merkel is probably No. 1, though Jacinda Ardern is
pretty good. Benazir Bhutto had an impossible job, but she did as much
as she could.

In addition, there are Sri Lanka, Argentina, Chile. Michelle Bachelet
in Chile did pretty well in her first term, not so much in her second.

Sirima Bandarinaike (Sri Lanka) was, I think, the first woman leader.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Tony Cooper
2021-01-20 17:34:04 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:25:43 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:22:08 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences
clumsy, It would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should
be put in jail."
Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
That's why we need women in power.
That has been a joke over the years, but it seems not to be a joke
any longer.
It's gone well for the Kiwis, but very poorly for the UK.
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Of these, Angela Merkel is probably No. 1, though Jacinda Ardern is
pretty good. Benazir Bhutto had an impossible job, but she did as much
as she could.
In addition, there are Sri Lanka, Argentina, Chile. Michelle Bachelet
in Chile did pretty well in her first term, not so much in her second.
Sirima Bandarinaike (Sri Lanka) was, I think, the first woman leader.
I would expect that Margaret Thatcher will not be mentioned as a
paragon of female leadership.

That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that we
feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so enrage so
many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans. They were
policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all that familiar
with.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-20 17:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:25:43 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:22:08 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences
clumsy, It would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should
be put in jail."
Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
That's why we need women in power.
That has been a joke over the years, but it seems not to be a joke
any longer.
It's gone well for the Kiwis, but very poorly for the UK.
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Of these, Angela Merkel is probably No. 1, though Jacinda Ardern is
pretty good. Benazir Bhutto had an impossible job, but she did as much
as she could.
In addition, there are Sri Lanka, Argentina, Chile. Michelle Bachelet
in Chile did pretty well in her first term, not so much in her second.
Sirima Bandarinaike (Sri Lanka) was, I think, the first woman leader.
I would expect that Margaret Thatcher will not be mentioned as a
paragon of female leadership.
You may have noticed that I didn't mention her.
Post by Tony Cooper
That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that we
feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so enrage so
many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans. They were
policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all that familiar
with.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Lewis
2021-01-20 19:38:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:25:43 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:22:08 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences
clumsy, It would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should
be put in jail."
Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
That's why we need women in power.
That has been a joke over the years, but it seems not to be a joke
any longer.
It's gone well for the Kiwis, but very poorly for the UK.
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Of these, Angela Merkel is probably No. 1, though Jacinda Ardern is
pretty good. Benazir Bhutto had an impossible job, but she did as much
as she could.
In addition, there are Sri Lanka, Argentina, Chile. Michelle Bachelet
in Chile did pretty well in her first term, not so much in her second.
Sirima Bandarinaike (Sri Lanka) was, I think, the first woman leader.
I would expect that Margaret Thatcher will not be mentioned as a
paragon of female leadership.
That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that we
feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so enrage so
many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans. They were
policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all that familiar
with.
Oh, she did plenty of things outside the UK as well. Started a pointless
and idiotic war based on her astonishing stubbornness and incapability to
engage in diplomacy, just for one.

I have the advantage of having several long-term British friends, and
we've discussed Thatcher at length over the decades.

Mostly she operated on the "anything I say is right, and the rest of you
can fuck off" principal of politics. Very Trumpian. She eviscerated the
UK Government to turn over vast sums of money to private enterprises and
damaged the standing of the country on the world stage to a degree it's
never recovered from. She was a union breaker, an enemy of the working
class, and a leader who never hesitate to emboldened the greedy at the
expense of the poor.

She tried to block Germany's reunification and thought and oft said that
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. She was a staunch supporter of the
apartheid regime in South Africa, of course.

She is also the direct progenitor of Brexit, and hated the EU and often
spoke against it.

She set about to, and succeeded, in destroying Britain's manufacturing
industry which led to the end of many well know companies with
international markets. Want to know why the British car industry
imploded and was bought up by Germans and Americans? Thatcher.

She also doubled the VAT (well, just short so she could not be called a
liar for denouncing reports she planned to double it in a loud voice
while actually doubling it), which of course impacts the poorest people
the most. But she despised the poor, having come from a family that
scraped itself out of the lower levels of the lower middle class, like
so many she wanted to make sure no one else would ever benefit from the
aid her family received.

She was a monster and there was a website (run by two friends of mine)
for years isthatcherdead.co.uk or something which got mentioned in the
Daily Heil, which wrung its hand at how terrible it was that people were
anxious to hear she was finally dead. It got a lot of traffic.

Before she died the website merely said, in large letters "NO THE CUNT
IS STILL ALIVE" and after it said "YES. This lady is not returning. How
are you celebrating?" with links to find parties near you celebrating
her death.

The hashtag "NowThatchersDead" was misread by many non-Brits as
#NowThatChersDead

She is hated and despised by a lot of the UK, but the rich Brexiteers
love her.

It is possible Britain has had a worse, more damaging PM, but it's not
likely.
--
First we must assume a spherical cow.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-20 19:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:25:43 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:22:08 -0500, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences
clumsy, It would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should
be put in jail."
Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
That's why we need women in power.
That has been a joke over the years, but it seems not to be a joke
any longer.
It's gone well for the Kiwis, but very poorly for the UK.
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Of these, Angela Merkel is probably No. 1, though Jacinda Ardern is
pretty good. Benazir Bhutto had an impossible job, but she did as much
as she could.
In addition, there are Sri Lanka, Argentina, Chile. Michelle Bachelet
in Chile did pretty well in her first term, not so much in her second.
Sirima Bandarinaike (Sri Lanka) was, I think, the first woman leader.
I would expect that Margaret Thatcher will not be mentioned as a
paragon of female leadership.
That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that we
feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so enrage so
many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans. They were
policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all that familiar
with.
Oh, she did plenty of things outside the UK as well. Started a pointless
and idiotic war based on her astonishing stubbornness and incapability to
engage in diplomacy, just for one.
I have the advantage of having several long-term British friends, and
we've discussed Thatcher at length over the decades.
Mostly she operated on the "anything I say is right, and the rest of you
can fuck off" principal of politics. Very Trumpian. She eviscerated the
UK Government to turn over vast sums of money to private enterprises and
damaged the standing of the country on the world stage to a degree it's
never recovered from. She was a union breaker, an enemy of the working
class, and a leader who never hesitate to emboldened the greedy at the
expense of the poor.
She tried to block Germany's reunification and thought and oft said that
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. She was a staunch supporter of the
apartheid regime in South Africa, of course.
She is also the direct progenitor of Brexit, and hated the EU and often
spoke against it.
She set about to, and succeeded, in destroying Britain's manufacturing
industry which led to the end of many well know companies with
international markets. Want to know why the British car industry
imploded and was bought up by Germans and Americans? Thatcher.
She also doubled the VAT (well, just short so she could not be called a
liar for denouncing reports she planned to double it in a loud voice
while actually doubling it), which of course impacts the poorest people
the most. But she despised the poor, having come from a family that
scraped itself out of the lower levels of the lower middle class, like
so many she wanted to make sure no one else would ever benefit from the
aid her family received.
She was a monster and there was a website (run by two friends of mine)
for years isthatcherdead.co.uk or something which got mentioned in the
Daily Heil, which wrung its hand at how terrible it was that people were
anxious to hear she was finally dead. It got a lot of traffic.
Before she died the website merely said, in large letters "NO THE CUNT
IS STILL ALIVE" and after it said "YES. This lady is not returning. How
are you celebrating?" with links to find parties near you celebrating
her death.
The hashtag "NowThatchersDead" was misread by many non-Brits as
#NowThatChersDead
She is hated and despised by a lot of the UK, but the rich Brexiteers
love her.
It is possible Britain has had a worse, more damaging PM, but it's not
likely.
Well, Boris is trying hard to be the worst, and maybe he'll manage it.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-01-20 20:07:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:44:19 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

[ cut]
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
It is possible Britain has had a worse, more damaging PM, but it's
not likely.
Well, Boris is trying hard to be the worst, and maybe he'll manage it.
130 v. 1 line addon; please trim!
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-01-20 19:58:30 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:38:04 GMT, Lewis <***@kreme.dont-email.me>
wrote:

[]
Post by Lewis
She is hated and despised by a lot of the UK, but the rich Brexiteers
love her.
It is possible Britain has had a worse, more damaging PM, but it's not
likely.
I do apologise for prematurely announcing your KF entry earlier; I
rescind it.

But could you please trim long quotes.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Tony Cooper
2021-01-20 20:12:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:38:04 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
I would expect that Margaret Thatcher will not be mentioned as a
paragon of female leadership.
That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that we
feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so enrage so
many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans. They were
policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all that familiar
with.
Everything you've listed below is "internal" to the UK. The Falklands
was an internal decision that resulted in activity outside of the UK,
but not something Americans were involved in.
Post by Lewis
Oh, she did plenty of things outside the UK as well. Started a pointless
and idiotic war based on her astonishing stubbornness and incapability to
engage in diplomacy, just for one.
I have the advantage of having several long-term British friends, and
we've discussed Thatcher at length over the decades.
Mostly she operated on the "anything I say is right, and the rest of you
can fuck off" principal of politics. Very Trumpian. She eviscerated the
UK Government to turn over vast sums of money to private enterprises and
damaged the standing of the country on the world stage to a degree it's
never recovered from. She was a union breaker, an enemy of the working
class, and a leader who never hesitate to emboldened the greedy at the
expense of the poor.
She tried to block Germany's reunification and thought and oft said that
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. She was a staunch supporter of the
apartheid regime in South Africa, of course.
She is also the direct progenitor of Brexit, and hated the EU and often
spoke against it.
She set about to, and succeeded, in destroying Britain's manufacturing
industry which led to the end of many well know companies with
international markets. Want to know why the British car industry
imploded and was bought up by Germans and Americans? Thatcher.
She also doubled the VAT (well, just short so she could not be called a
liar for denouncing reports she planned to double it in a loud voice
while actually doubling it), which of course impacts the poorest people
the most. But she despised the poor, having come from a family that
scraped itself out of the lower levels of the lower middle class, like
so many she wanted to make sure no one else would ever benefit from the
aid her family received.
She was a monster and there was a website (run by two friends of mine)
for years isthatcherdead.co.uk or something which got mentioned in the
Daily Heil, which wrung its hand at how terrible it was that people were
anxious to hear she was finally dead. It got a lot of traffic.
Before she died the website merely said, in large letters "NO THE CUNT
IS STILL ALIVE" and after it said "YES. This lady is not returning. How
are you celebrating?" with links to find parties near you celebrating
her death.
The hashtag "NowThatchersDead" was misread by many non-Brits as
#NowThatChersDead
She is hated and despised by a lot of the UK, but the rich Brexiteers
love her.
It is possible Britain has had a worse, more damaging PM, but it's not
likely.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
charles
2021-01-20 20:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:38:04 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
I would expect that Margaret Thatcher will not be mentioned as a
paragon of female leadership.
That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that we
feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so enrage so
many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans. They were
policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all that familiar
with.
Everything you've listed below is "internal" to the UK. The Falklands
was an internal decision that resulted in activity outside of the UK, but
not something Americans were involved in.
Some of them were. Ascension Island held a USAF base. Under some treaty
they were required to supply fuel to any RAF aircraft that happed to call
by. There were quite a lot of those, as it happened.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Lewis
2021-01-21 05:38:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:38:04 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
I would expect that Margaret Thatcher will not be mentioned as a
paragon of female leadership.
That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that we
feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so enrage so
many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans. They were
policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all that familiar
with.
Everything you've listed below is "internal" to the UK. The Falklands
was an internal decision that resulted in activity outside of the UK,
but not something Americans were involved in.
Supporting apartheid and trying to block reunification were not.
Decimating companies that plenty of people outside the UK bought cars
(and other goods) from were not.

The Falkland War was certainly external to the UK and about issues we
were familiar with.
--
He felt that the darkness was full of unimaginable horrors - and the
trouble with unimaginable horrors was that they were only too
easy to imagine...
Peter Moylan
2021-01-21 02:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that
we feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so
enrage so many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans.
They were policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all
that familiar with.
Oh, she did plenty of things outside the UK as well. Started a
pointless and idiotic war based on her astonishing stubbornness and
incapability to engage in diplomacy, just for one.
It wasn't pointless. Without that war, she was about to lose an
election. She needed that war.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
charles
2021-01-21 09:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that
we feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so
enrage so many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans.
They were policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all
that familiar with.
Oh, she did plenty of things outside the UK as well. Started a
pointless and idiotic war based on her astonishing stubbornness and
incapability to engage in diplomacy, just for one.
It wasn't pointless. Without that war, she was about to lose an
election. She needed that war.
+1
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-21 10:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that
we feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so
enrage so many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans.
They were policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all
that familiar with.
Oh, she did plenty of things outside the UK as well. Started a
pointless and idiotic war based on her astonishing stubbornness and
incapability to engage in diplomacy, just for one.
It wasn't pointless. Without that war, she was about to lose an
election. She needed that war.
Yes, I'm surprised that the orange monster didn't understand that
lesson. If he'd declared war on somewhere weak in August 2020, say
Costa Rica, not Iran, he'd probably be president still.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Janet
2021-01-21 11:43:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@imm.cnrs.fr
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that
we feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so
enrage so many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans.
They were policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all
that familiar with.
Oh, she did plenty of things outside the UK as well. Started a
pointless and idiotic war based on her astonishing stubbornness and
incapability to engage in diplomacy, just for one.
It wasn't pointless. Without that war, she was about to lose an
election. She needed that war.
Yes, I'm surprised that the orange monster didn't understand that
lesson. If he'd declared war on somewhere weak in August 2020, say
Costa Rica, not Iran, he'd probably be president still.
Thank god for his total ignorance of history (and politics and the
world)

Janet
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-21 12:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Tony Cooper
That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that
we feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so
enrage so many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans.
They were policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all
that familiar with.
Oh, she did plenty of things outside the UK as well. Started a
pointless and idiotic war based on her astonishing stubbornness and
incapability to engage in diplomacy, just for one.
It wasn't pointless. Without that war, she was about to lose an
election. She needed that war.
Yes, I'm surprised that the orange monster didn't understand that
lesson. If he'd declared war on somewhere weak in August 2020, say
Costa Rica, not Iran, he'd probably be president still.
Hmmm. Didn't Dubya think that Iraq was 'somewhere weak'?

Jan
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-01-20 19:54:49 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:34:04 GMT, Tony Cooper <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
I would expect that Margaret Thatcher will not be mentioned as a
paragon of female leadership.
That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that we
feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so enrage so
many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans. They were
policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all that familiar
with.
Ah I get it; we're a land far away, of which you know little. Touché!
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Tony Cooper
2021-01-20 20:14:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:54:49 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
I would expect that Margaret Thatcher will not be mentioned as a
paragon of female leadership.
That's rather difficult for an American to understand. Not that we
feel any need to defend Thatcher, but whatever she did to so enrage so
many Brits is not fully understood by most Americans. They were
policies internal to the UK about issues we aren't all that familiar
with.
Ah I get it; we're a land far away, of which you know little. Touché!
Actually, some of us did *know* of some of the issues, but we didn't
understamd the effects.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
RH Draney
2021-01-20 19:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Corazon Aquino
Kim Campbell
Vigdis Finnbogadóttir

And that Evita person....r
CDB
2021-01-20 21:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier.
Pakistan also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Corazon Aquino Kim Campbell Vigdis Finnbogadóttir
And that Evita person....r
That Isabelita person too.

Poor Kim Campbell wasn't so much a PM as custodian of the bag.

But nobody has mentioned Brenda I. She did pretty well.
Quinn C
2021-01-21 01:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier.
Pakistan also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Corazon Aquino Kim Campbell Vigdis Finnbogadóttir
And that Evita person....r
That Isabelita person too.
But not that Imelda person. Incredibly, I find she was still a member of
parliament until recently, shortly before her 90th birthday.
Post by CDB
Poor Kim Campbell wasn't so much a PM as custodian of the bag.
But nobody has mentioned Brenda I. She did pretty well.
And Catherine the Great, I guess, if we're going there now.
--
It was frequently the fastest way to find what he was looking
for, provided that he was looking for trouble.
-- L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen
Anders D. Nygaard
2021-01-24 15:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by CDB
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier.
Pakistan also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Corazon Aquino Kim Campbell Vigdis Finnbogadóttir
And that Evita person....r
That Isabelita person too.
But not that Imelda person. Incredibly, I find she was still a member of
parliament until recently, shortly before her 90th birthday.
Post by CDB
Poor Kim Campbell wasn't so much a PM as custodian of the bag.
But nobody has mentioned Brenda I. She did pretty well.
And Catherine the Great, I guess, if we're going there now.
Or Margrete I. Reigned 1376-1412.

/Anders, (also) Denmark
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-21 10:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier.
Pakistan also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Corazon Aquino Kim Campbell Vigdis Finnbogadóttir
And that Evita person....r
That Isabelita person too.
Poor Kim Campbell wasn't so much a PM as custodian of the bag.
Well, I think that Isabelita person wasn't much more than that, and
that Evita person didn't live long enough to be president.
Post by CDB
But nobody has mentioned Brenda I. She did pretty well.
I thought of Brenda I, but it was a long time ago, and she had real
power. I think that the Mary half of Williamandmary basically deferred
to the William half, and I don't think Anne and Victoria, not to
mention Brenda II, did much governing.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
CDB
2021-01-21 14:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by CDB
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier.
Pakistan also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Corazon Aquino Kim Campbell Vigdis Finnbogadóttir
And that Evita person....r
That Isabelita person too.
Poor Kim Campbell wasn't so much a PM as custodian of the bag.
Well, I think that Isabelita person wasn't much more than that, and
that Evita person didn't live long enough to be president.
True, but she was a Minister of several departments, and a power in her
own right. My mother once told me the story of Evita's habit of holding
gala events at which she would circulate among the guests, relieving
them of their jewelry for the benefit of her charities.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by CDB
But nobody has mentioned Brenda I. She did pretty well.
I thought of Brenda I, but it was a long time ago, and she had real
power. I think that the Mary half of Williamandmary basically
deferred to the William half, and I don't think Anne and Victoria,
not to mention Brenda II, did much governing.
Yes, I picked the earlier monarch because she could legitimately be
called her country's leader.
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-21 14:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by CDB
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier.
Pakistan also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Corazon Aquino Kim Campbell Vigdis Finnbogadóttir
And that Evita person....r
That Isabelita person too.
Poor Kim Campbell wasn't so much a PM as custodian of the bag.
Well, I think that Isabelita person wasn't much more than that, and
that Evita person didn't live long enough to be president.
Post by CDB
But nobody has mentioned Brenda I. She did pretty well.
I thought of Brenda I, but it was a long time ago, and she had real
power.
Certainly. She could say 'Off with his head',
and that was what would happen next.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I think that the Mary half of Williamandmary basically deferred
to the William half, and I don't think Anne and Victoria, not to
mention Brenda II, did much governing.
The Williamandmary part II did much gardening.
Her gardens at 'Paleis Het Loo' were found to be structurally intact,
when the later English landscape garden that covered them was removed.
Part II's gardens have been restored to their 17th century splendor,
and they can be visited, (again, perhaps, after corona is over)

Jan
charles
2021-01-21 14:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by CDB
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier.
Pakistan also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Corazon Aquino Kim Campbell Vigdis Finnbogadóttir
And that Evita person....r
That Isabelita person too.
Poor Kim Campbell wasn't so much a PM as custodian of the bag.
Well, I think that Isabelita person wasn't much more than that, and
that Evita person didn't live long enough to be president.
Post by CDB
But nobody has mentioned Brenda I. She did pretty well.
I thought of Brenda I, but it was a long time ago, and she had real
power.
Certainly. She could say 'Off with his head',
and that was what would happen next.
"Will nobody rid me of this tubulant priest?" was said some years earlier.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-21 19:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by CDB
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier.
Pakistan also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Corazon Aquino Kim Campbell Vigdis Finnbogadóttir
And that Evita person....r
That Isabelita person too.
Poor Kim Campbell wasn't so much a PM as custodian of the bag.
Well, I think that Isabelita person wasn't much more than that, and
that Evita person didn't live long enough to be president.
Post by CDB
But nobody has mentioned Brenda I. She did pretty well.
I thought of Brenda I, but it was a long time ago, and she had real
power.
Certainly. She could say 'Off with his head',
and that was what would happen next.
"Will nobody rid me of this tubulant priest?" was said some years earlier.
Somehow lacks force, compared to 'Off with his head!',
don't you think?

Jan
Peter Moylan
2021-01-21 02:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto
oh yes, Angela Merkel.
Corazon Aquino
Kim Campbell
Vigdis Finnbogadóttir
And that Evita person....r
Aung Sang Suu Kyi.

Although in her case, there was a very long delay between being elected
and assuming power.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-21 16:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
Aung Sang Suu Kyi.
Although in her case, there was a very long delay between being elected
and assuming power.
And not so long before abusing it?
Peter Moylan
2021-01-22 00:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
Aung Sang Suu Kyi.
Although in her case, there was a very long delay between being
elected and assuming power.
And not so long before abusing it?
It's hard to reconcile her discreditable actions with her former good
reputation. I took it to mean that the military was still controlling her.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-22 15:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
Aung Sang Suu Kyi.
Although in her case, there was a very long delay between being
elected and assuming power.
And not so long before abusing it?
It's hard to reconcile her discreditable actions with her former good
reputation. I took it to mean that the military was still controlling her.
If Obama had abused his office (perhaps in some of the ways his
successor did), would the Nobel Committee have rescinded his
premature Peace Prize?

The three previous US president laureates received them for specific
things: TR for mediating the end of the Russo-Japanese War, Wilson
for the League of Nations, and Carter (not for the Camp David accords
but) for decades of varied post-presidency undertakings.

I just went through the list to check. They skipped a lot of years. And
didn't recognize the founding of the United Nations.
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-24 10:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
Aung Sang Suu Kyi.
Although in her case, there was a very long delay between being
elected and assuming power.
And not so long before abusing it?
It's hard to reconcile her discreditable actions with her former good
reputation. I took it to mean that the military was still controlling her.
If Obama had abused his office (perhaps in some of the ways his
successor did), would the Nobel Committee have rescinded his
premature Peace Prize?
The three previous US president laureates received them for specific
things: TR for mediating the end of the Russo-Japanese War, Wilson
for the League of Nations, and Carter (not for the Camp David accords
but) for decades of varied post-presidency undertakings.
I just went through the list to check. They skipped a lot of years. And
didn't recognize the founding of the United Nations.
The USA should have gotten the prize for finally coming to their senses
after having made WWII inevitable by blocking the League of Nations
from becoming an effective organisation?

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-24 14:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
Aung Sang Suu Kyi.
Although in her case, there was a very long delay between being
elected and assuming power.
And not so long before abusing it?
It's hard to reconcile her discreditable actions with her former good
reputation. I took it to mean that the military was still controlling her.
If Obama had abused his office (perhaps in some of the ways his
successor did), would the Nobel Committee have rescinded his
premature Peace Prize?
The three previous US president laureates received them for specific
things: TR for mediating the end of the Russo-Japanese War, Wilson
for the League of Nations, and Carter (not for the Camp David accords
but) for decades of varied post-presidency undertakings.
I just went through the list to check. They skipped a lot of years. And
didn't recognize the founding of the United Nations.
The USA should have gotten the prize for finally coming to their senses
after having made WWII inevitable by blocking the League of Nations
from becoming an effective organisation?
Wilson was mentally incapacitated and unable to make his case with
the key senators needed for ratifying international agreements. (t****
was able to weasel out of the Paris Accords because they aren't a
treaty, because Obama couldn't have gotten the Senate to ratify it.)

How could the League have undone the vindictive and counterproductive
demands for reparations at Versailles? That was Hitler's main talking point.
The Jew-hatred was just an extra added bonus. Most Germans never saw
a Jew -- there weren't that many.
charles
2021-01-24 15:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier.
Pakistan
Aung Sang Suu Kyi. Although in her case, there was a very long
delay between being elected and assuming power.
And not so long before abusing it?
It's hard to reconcile her discreditable actions with her former
good reputation. I took it to mean that the military was still
controlling her.
If Obama had abused his office (perhaps in some of the ways his
successor did), would the Nobel Committee have rescinded his
premature Peace Prize? The three previous US president laureates
received them for specific things: TR for mediating the end of the
Russo-Japanese War, Wilson for the League of Nations, and Carter
(not for the Camp David accords but) for decades of varied
post-presidency undertakings. I just went through the list to
check. They skipped a lot of years. And didn't recognize the
founding of the United Nations.
The USA should have gotten the prize for finally coming to their senses
after having made WWII inevitable by blocking the League of Nations
from becoming an effective organisation?
Wilson was mentally incapacitated and unable to make his case with the
key senators needed for ratifying international agreements. (t**** was
able to weasel out of the Paris Accords because they aren't a treaty,
because Obama couldn't have gotten the Senate to ratify it.)
How could the League have undone the vindictive and counterproductive
demands for reparations at Versailles? That was Hitler's main talking
point. The Jew-hatred was just an extra added bonus. Most Germans never
saw a Jew -- there weren't that many.
Wikipedia suggest about half a million.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-24 17:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier.
Pakistan
Aung Sang Suu Kyi. Although in her case, there was a very long
delay between being elected and assuming power.
And not so long before abusing it?
It's hard to reconcile her discreditable actions with her former
good reputation. I took it to mean that the military was still
controlling her.
If Obama had abused his office (perhaps in some of the ways his
successor did), would the Nobel Committee have rescinded his
premature Peace Prize? The three previous US president laureates
received them for specific things: TR for mediating the end of the
Russo-Japanese War, Wilson for the League of Nations, and Carter
(not for the Camp David accords but) for decades of varied
post-presidency undertakings. I just went through the list to
check. They skipped a lot of years. And didn't recognize the
founding of the United Nations.
The USA should have gotten the prize for finally coming to their senses
after having made WWII inevitable by blocking the League of Nations
from becoming an effective organisation?
Wilson was mentally incapacitated and unable to make his case with the
key senators needed for ratifying international agreements. (t**** was
able to weasel out of the Paris Accords because they aren't a treaty,
because Obama couldn't have gotten the Senate to ratify it.)
How could the League have undone the vindictive and counterproductive
demands for reparations at Versailles? That was Hitler's main talking
point. The Jew-hatred was just an extra added bonus. Most Germans never
saw a Jew -- there weren't that many.
Wikipedia suggest about half a million.
Out of 67,000,000 Germans in 1914. That's one Jew for every
134 Germans.
Paul Wolff
2021-01-24 19:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by J. J. Lodder
On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 7:15:56 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 9:08:41 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier.
Pakistan
Aung Sang Suu Kyi. Although in her case, there was a very long
delay between being elected and assuming power.
And not so long before abusing it?
It's hard to reconcile her discreditable actions with her former
good reputation. I took it to mean that the military was still
controlling her.
If Obama had abused his office (perhaps in some of the ways his
successor did), would the Nobel Committee have rescinded his
premature Peace Prize? The three previous US president laureates
received them for specific things: TR for mediating the end of the
Russo-Japanese War, Wilson for the League of Nations, and Carter
(not for the Camp David accords but) for decades of varied
post-presidency undertakings. I just went through the list to
check. They skipped a lot of years. And didn't recognize the
founding of the United Nations.
The USA should have gotten the prize for finally coming to their senses
after having made WWII inevitable by blocking the League of Nations
from becoming an effective organisation?
Wilson was mentally incapacitated and unable to make his case with the
key senators needed for ratifying international agreements. (t**** was
able to weasel out of the Paris Accords because they aren't a treaty,
because Obama couldn't have gotten the Senate to ratify it.)
How could the League have undone the vindictive and counterproductive
demands for reparations at Versailles? That was Hitler's main talking
point. The Jew-hatred was just an extra added bonus. Most Germans never
saw a Jew -- there weren't that many.
Wikipedia suggest about half a million.
Out of 67,000,000 Germans in 1914. That's one Jew for every
134 Germans.
You make it sound like an allocation of spoils, if not a tag-wrestling
match. And you weren't so wrong.
--
Paul
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-25 07:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by charles
Post by J. J. Lodder
On Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 7:15:56 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 9:08:41 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Israel and India experimented with Lady Leaders much earlier. Pakistan
Aung Sang Suu Kyi. Although in her case, there was a very long
delay between being elected and assuming power.
And not so long before abusing it?
It's hard to reconcile her discreditable actions with her former
good reputation. I took it to mean that the military was still
controlling her.
If Obama had abused his office (perhaps in some of the ways his
successor did), would the Nobel Committee have rescinded his
premature Peace Prize? The three previous US president laureates
received them for specific things: TR for mediating the end of the
Russo-Japanese War, Wilson for the League of Nations, and Carter
(not for the Camp David accords but) for decades of varied
post-presidency undertakings. I just went through the list to
check. They skipped a lot of years. And didn't recognize the
founding of the United Nations.
The USA should have gotten the prize for finally coming to their senses
after having made WWII inevitable by blocking the League of Nations
from becoming an effective organisation?
Wilson was mentally incapacitated and unable to make his case with the
key senators needed for ratifying international agreements. (t**** was
able to weasel out of the Paris Accords because they aren't a treaty,
because Obama couldn't have gotten the Senate to ratify it.)
How could the League have undone the vindictive and counterproductive
demands for reparations at Versailles? That was Hitler's main talking
point. The Jew-hatred was just an extra added bonus. Most Germans never
saw a Jew -- there weren't that many.
Wikipedia suggest about half a million.
Out of 67,000,000 Germans in 1914. That's one Jew for every
134 Germans.
You make it sound like an allocation of spoils, if not a tag-wrestling
match. And you weren't so wrong.
Yes, but the half million were not spread evenly over the whole
country; they were concentrated in particular places. My grandfather, a
solicitor in Dublin, thought that the Jews he encountered were very
honest in their business dealings. When my mother told me that I was
surprised that there were so many Jews in Ireland that one would have
an opinion about them. (Readers of Ulysses may have wondered the same
thing.) However, Dublin isn't Ireland any more than Berlin is Germany.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Sam Plusnet
2021-01-19 19:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Twitter?
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter Moylan
2021-01-20 00:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences
clumsy, It would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should be
put in jail."
Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
There's a subtle difference. The YL versions hint at a possible excuse
for lying. "It wasn't me, it was my lips." The sentences seem to be
talking about lips that have some sort of autonomy.

On reflection, I think that only applies to the second sentence. The
first one suggests that those politicians have two sets of lips, one to
tell lies and the other for other purposes.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Quinn C
2021-01-20 03:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
The words about lips are unnecessary, and make both sentences
clumsy, It would be to just say "Politicians telling lies should be
put in jail."
Or perhaps even better, "Politicians should be put in jail."
There's a subtle difference. The YL versions hint at a possible excuse
for lying. "It wasn't me, it was my lips." The sentences seem to be
talking about lips that have some sort of autonomy.
On reflection, I think that only applies to the second sentence. The
first one suggests that those politicians have two sets of lips, one to
tell lies and the other for other purposes.
I only assumed one set, the first one - cf. "These lips were made for
kissing."

The whole confusion seems to arise from a wrong segmentation of the
sentence that inspired the thread:

... Washington who'd sooner die Than stain his lips to tell a lie?

It doesn't mean that he has lips to tell a lie and doesn't want to stain
those, it means that telling a lie would stain his lips, and he wouldn't
want that to happen ("stain his lips by telling a lie"). That's how I
read it at least.
--
We shall never believe in things (even if this belief is based
in a so-called eternity), which can become a means of oppression.
-- Hedwig Dohm (1876), my translation
CDB
2021-01-19 14:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
That use of "lips" doesn't seem at all idiomatic to me.

"Lip" can be used informally to mean "an insolent reply" ("And don't
give me any lip"), but that doesn't seem directly relevant to your
example. Where did you get it from?
Horace LaBadie
2021-01-19 15:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
That use of "lips" doesn't seem at all idiomatic to me.
"Lip" can be used informally to mean "an insolent reply" ("And don't
give me any lip"), but that doesn't seem directly relevant to your
example. Where did you get it from?
Q: How can you tell that a politician is lying?
A: His lips are moving.
Yurui Liu
2021-01-19 16:19:13 UTC
Permalink
CDB 在 2021年1月19日 星期二下午10:54:37 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
Post by CDB
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
That use of "lips" doesn't seem at all idiomatic to me.
"Lip" can be used informally to mean "an insolent reply" ("And don't
give me any lip"), but that doesn't seem directly relevant to your
example. Where did you get it from?
Oh, have you heard the story told, Of Washington the brave and bold,
Of Washington who'd sooner die Than stain his lips to tell a lie?

I forgot to use possessive in my first two sentences.
Are they okay now?

Politicians, with their lips to tell lies, should be put in jail.
Politicians, with their lips telling lies, should be put in jail.
Horace LaBadie
2021-01-19 16:59:12 UTC
Permalink
CDB 圚 2021幎1月19日 星期二䞋午10:54:37 [UTC+8] 的信䞭寫道
Post by CDB
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
That use of "lips" doesn't seem at all idiomatic to me.
"Lip" can be used informally to mean "an insolent reply" ("And don't
give me any lip"), but that doesn't seem directly relevant to your
example. Where did you get it from?
Oh, have you heard the story told, Of Washington the brave and bold,
Of Washington who'd sooner die Than stain his lips to tell a lie?
Century-old doggrel from a First Grade primer (The Complete Holiday
Guide, 1911, Scribner.) is not a good guide to contemporary English.
I forgot to use possessive in my first two sentences.
Are they okay now?
Politicians, with their lips to tell lies, should be put in jail.
Politicians, with their lips telling lies, should be put in jail.
CDB
2021-01-19 17:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
CDB：
Post by CDB
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the
difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
That use of "lips" doesn't seem at all idiomatic to me.
"Lip" can be used informally to mean "an insolent reply" ("And
don't give me any lip"), but that doesn't seem directly relevant to
your example. Where did you get it from?
Oh, have you heard the story told, Of Washington the brave and bold,
Of Washington who'd sooner die Than stain his lips to tell a lie?
Ah. Thank you. The requirements of simple metre may have led the
versifier to use uncommon forms ("stain his lips by telling a lie" would
be more natural, as would something like "open his lips to tell a lie".)

The use of an infinitive phrase, in his context or yours, seems to imply
purpose (as in "open his lips to tell a lie"). Your first example, with
or without the possessive form, is hard to reconcile with the purposeful
possession of lips.

Your second example is a bit closer. I suppose it might be used to
distinguish those politicians from the ones who only write their lies;
or, with commas to make the prepositional phrase a description instead
of a condition, the phrase could be read as a condemnation of
politicians in general. Politicians, with their lips [constantly]
telling lies, should be put in jail.

I agree with others here who have said that the simplest and best
reformulation would leave lips out entirely.
Post by Yurui Liu
I forgot to use possessive in my first two sentences. Are they okay
now?
Politicians, with their lips to tell lies, should be put in jail.
Politicians, with their lips telling lies, should be put in jail.
Yurui Liu
2021-01-20 06:40:43 UTC
Permalink
CDB 在 2021年1月20日 星期三上午1:11:13 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
Post by Yurui Liu
CDB：
Post by CDB
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the
difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
That use of "lips" doesn't seem at all idiomatic to me.
"Lip" can be used informally to mean "an insolent reply" ("And
don't give me any lip"), but that doesn't seem directly relevant to
your example. Where did you get it from?
Oh, have you heard the story told, Of Washington the brave and bold,
Of Washington who'd sooner die Than stain his lips to tell a lie?
Ah. Thank you. The requirements of simple metre may have led the
versifier to use uncommon forms ("stain his lips by telling a lie" would
be more natural, as would something like "open his lips to tell a lie".)
The use of an infinitive phrase, in his context or yours, seems to imply
purpose (as in "open his lips to tell a lie"). Your first example, with
or without the possessive form, is hard to reconcile with the purposeful
possession of lips.
I'd like to know whether there was or is a conventional association
between lips and lying. I've seen some sentences like:

"And before Wendy could part her lips to tell a lie the neighbor
stepped in . . .,"

"So whatever lies you have told, then I recommend you go on your
knees and ask Jesus to forgive you and never ever allow your lips to tell a lie . . ."

I know we could leave out "lips" and use simpler expressions, but I'm curious
about how it is used. How about "politicians with their lying lips"?

The second issue is how the sequence "noun + to-infinitive" is understood.
In "stain his lips to tell a lie," it seems "to tell a lie" is the cause of staining his
lips. Are there similar uses in current English? I can only think of
"cringe to think/see . . ., "tremble to see . . .," etc., where the infinitive phrase
describes the perceptual stimulus leading to the the action described by the
verb. I particularly want to know if this usage was less restricted back then,
or "stain his lips to tell a lie" is only artistic license. I'm also thinking about
"his lips to lie" like "a gun to shoot."
Your second example is a bit closer. I suppose it might be used to
distinguish those politicians from the ones who only write their lies;
or, with commas to make the prepositional phrase a description instead
of a condition, the phrase could be read as a condemnation of
politicians in general. Politicians, with their lips [constantly]
telling lies, should be put in jail.
I agree with others here who have said that the simplest and best
reformulation would leave lips out entirely.
Post by Yurui Liu
I forgot to use possessive in my first two sentences. Are they okay
now?
Politicians, with their lips to tell lies, should be put in jail.
Politicians, with their lips telling lies, should be put in jail.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-20 15:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know whether there was or is a conventional association
I don't believe that you have. Maybe it's an association used in
Chinese poetry / elevated prose?

The "lips" association is usually with either kissing or ingesting,
as neatly encapsulated in the slogan "Lips that touch liquor will
never touch mine."
Post by Yurui Liu
"And before Wendy could part her lips to tell a lie the neighbor
stepped in . . .,"
"So whatever lies you have told, then I recommend you go on your
knees and ask Jesus to forgive you and never ever allow your lips to tell a lie . . ."
I know we could leave out "lips" and use simpler expressions, but I'm curious
about how it is used. How about "politicians with their lying lips"?
The second issue is how the sequence "noun + to-infinitive" is understood.
No, as everyone keeps telling you, IT IS NOT. (A) This is POETRY, and
the word choice has been determined to fit the meter. Better poets
don't usually strain the grammar to fit the meter. (B) You have "MISCUT"
the passage. It is not "noun+infinitive," it is "clause+infinitive."
Post by Yurui Liu
In "stain his lips to tell a lie," it seems "to tell a lie" is the cause of staining his
lips. Are there similar uses in current English? I can only think of
"cringe to think/see . . ., "tremble to see . . .," etc., where the infinitive phrase
Do you really see that those are clear because the verbs are INTRANSITIVE?
The infinitive goes with the CLAUSE, not with one word selected from it.
Post by Yurui Liu
describes the perceptual stimulus leading to the the action described by the
verb. I particularly want to know if this usage was less restricted back then,
or "stain his lips to tell a lie" is only artistic license. I'm also thinking about
"his lips to lie" like "a gun to shoot."
Well, don't.
Yurui Liu
2021-01-20 16:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Peter T. Daniels 在 2021年1月20日 星期三下午11:41:19 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know whether there was or is a conventional association
I don't believe that you have. Maybe it's an association used in
Chinese poetry / elevated prose?
The "lips" association is usually with either kissing or ingesting,
as neatly encapsulated in the slogan "Lips that touch liquor will
never touch mine."
Thanks for sharing it with me. I came across the following:

. . . but he made excuses with his lying lips and laughed in
his innermost self at the power he had acquired over his cousin . . .
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
"And before Wendy could part her lips to tell a lie the neighbor
stepped in . . .,"
"So whatever lies you have told, then I recommend you go on your
knees and ask Jesus to forgive you and never ever allow your lips to tell a lie . . ."
I know we could leave out "lips" and use simpler expressions, but I'm curious
about how it is used. How about "politicians with their lying lips"?
The second issue is how the sequence "noun + to-infinitive" is understood.
No, as everyone keeps telling you, IT IS NOT. (A) This is POETRY, and
the word choice has been determined to fit the meter. Better poets
don't usually strain the grammar to fit the meter. (B) You have "MISCUT"
the passage. It is not "noun+infinitive," it is "clause+infinitive."
That's certainly a possibility, although I'm not sure if it's the only.
After all, the said text is over a century old. Old texts never cease to surprise me.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
In "stain his lips to tell a lie," it seems "to tell a lie" is the cause of staining his
lips. Are there similar uses in current English? I can only think of
"cringe to think/see . . ., "tremble to see . . .," etc., where the infinitive phrase
Do you really see that those are clear because the verbs are INTRANSITIVE?
The infinitive goes with the CLAUSE, not with one word selected from it.
Post by Yurui Liu
describes the perceptual stimulus leading to the the action described by the
verb. I particularly want to know if this usage was less restricted back then,
or "stain his lips to tell a lie" is only artistic license. I'm also thinking about
"his lips to lie" like "a gun to shoot."
Well, don't.
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-19 20:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
CDB 在 2021年1月19日 星期二下午10:54:37 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
Post by CDB
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
That use of "lips" doesn't seem at all idiomatic to me.
"Lip" can be used informally to mean "an insolent reply" ("And don't
give me any lip"), but that doesn't seem directly relevant to your
example. Where did you get it from?
Oh, have you heard the story told, Of Washington the brave and bold,
Of Washington who'd sooner die Than stain his lips to tell a lie?
I forgot to use possessive in my first two sentences.
Are they okay now?
Politicians, with their lips to tell lies, should be put in jail.
Politicians, with their lips telling lies, should be put in jail.
No. Forget about lips telling lies. You'll be much better off if you can
find a real sentence.
--
Jerry Friedman
Quinn C
2021-01-19 22:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Yurui Liu
CDB 在 2021年1月19日 星期二下午10:54:37 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
Post by CDB
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
That use of "lips" doesn't seem at all idiomatic to me.
"Lip" can be used informally to mean "an insolent reply" ("And don't
give me any lip"), but that doesn't seem directly relevant to your
example. Where did you get it from?
Oh, have you heard the story told, Of Washington the brave and bold,
Of Washington who'd sooner die Than stain his lips to tell a lie?
I forgot to use possessive in my first two sentences.
Are they okay now?
Politicians, with their lips to tell lies, should be put in jail.
Politicians, with their lips telling lies, should be put in jail.
No. Forget about lips telling lies. You'll be much better off if you can
find a real sentence.
Read my lips: NO OLD TEXTS.



.sig is random (in an everyday sense)
--
Where we are, when we are ... nothing but lies told by the senses.
-- Trance Gemini
Yurui Liu
2021-01-20 01:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Jerry Friedman 在 2021年1月20日 星期三上午4:36:54 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
Post by Yurui Liu
CDB 在 2021年1月19日 星期二下午10:54:37 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
Post by CDB
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
That use of "lips" doesn't seem at all idiomatic to me.
"Lip" can be used informally to mean "an insolent reply" ("And don't
give me any lip"), but that doesn't seem directly relevant to your
example. Where did you get it from?
Oh, have you heard the story told, Of Washington the brave and bold,
Of Washington who'd sooner die Than stain his lips to tell a lie?
I forgot to use possessive in my first two sentences.
Are they okay now?
Politicians, with their lips to tell lies, should be put in jail.
Politicians, with their lips telling lies, should be put in jail.
No. Forget about lips telling lies. You'll be much better off if you can
find a real sentence.
I think it's a useful exercise trying to make up sentences from chunks seen
elsewhere, and learning what works and what doesn't.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-20 15:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Jerry Friedman 在 2021年1月20日 星期三上午4:36:54 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
No. Forget about lips telling lies. You'll be much better off if you can
find a real sentence.
I think it's a useful exercise trying to make up sentences from chunks seen
elsewhere, and learning what works and what doesn't.
As you have seen from example after example for many, many months,
or maybe years, it is not useful, because almost always, it is impossible
to determine what it is you are asking about / what interpretation you
are trying to put on your inventions.
Yurui Liu
2021-01-20 15:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Peter T. Daniels 在 2021年1月20日 星期三下午11:34:26 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
Jerry Friedman 在 2021年1月20日 星期三上午4:36:54 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
No. Forget about lips telling lies. You'll be much better off if you can
find a real sentence.
I think it's a useful exercise trying to make up sentences from chunks seen
elsewhere, and learning what works and what doesn't.
As you have seen from example after example for many, many months,
or maybe years, it is not useful, because almost always, it is impossible
to determine what it is you are asking about / what interpretation you
are trying to put on your inventions.
Trial and error is part of learning. My questions are often formed with some
hypothesis in mind (which is often only known to me).
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-20 16:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Peter T. Daniels 在 2021年1月20日 星期三下午11:34:26 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
Jerry Friedman 在 2021年1月20日 星期三上午4:36:54 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
No. Forget about lips telling lies. You'll be much better off if you can
find a real sentence.
I think it's a useful exercise trying to make up sentences from chunks seen
elsewhere, and learning what works and what doesn't.
As you have seen from example after example for many, many months,
or maybe years, it is not useful, because almost always, it is impossible
to determine what it is you are asking about / what interpretation you
are trying to put on your inventions.
Trial and error is part of learning. My questions are often formed with some
hypothesis in mind (which is often only known to me).
Which makes them uninterpretable to those who still try to answer you.
Yurui Liu
2021-01-20 17:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Peter T. Daniels 在 2021年1月21日 星期四上午12:22:13 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
Peter T. Daniels 在 2021年1月20日 星期三下午11:34:26 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
Jerry Friedman 在 2021年1月20日 星期三上午4:36:54 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
No. Forget about lips telling lies. You'll be much better off if you can
find a real sentence.
I think it's a useful exercise trying to make up sentences from chunks seen
elsewhere, and learning what works and what doesn't.
As you have seen from example after example for many, many months,
or maybe years, it is not useful, because almost always, it is impossible
to determine what it is you are asking about / what interpretation you
are trying to put on your inventions.
Trial and error is part of learning. My questions are often formed with some
hypothesis in mind (which is often only known to me).
Which makes them uninterpretable to those who still try to answer you.
I think they can understand the questions without understanding the lurking
hypotheses. They are actually more curious about what motivated the
questions than they really need any further information to interpret them.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-20 08:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Yurui Liu
CDB 在 2021年1月19日 星期二下午10:54:37 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
On 1/19/2021 3:45 AM, Yurui Liu wrote:> > > Hi,> >> > > Are the
following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?> >> > >
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.> > >
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.> >> > > I'd
appreciate your help.> > That use of "lips" doesn't seem at all
idiomatic to me.> >> > "Lip" can be used informally to mean "an
insolent reply" ("And don't> > give me any lip"), but that doesn't seem
directly relevant to your> > example. Where did you get it from?
Oh, have you heard the story told, Of Washington the brave and bold,>
Of Washington who'd sooner die Than stain his lips to tell a lie?>> I
forgot to use possessive in my first two sentences.> Are they okay
now?>> Politicians, with their lips to tell lies, should be put in
jail.> Politicians, with their lips telling lies, should be put in jail.
No. Forget about lips telling lies. You'll be much better off if you can
find a real sentence.
Of course. Maybe you could try to persuade Navi of that as well.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Ken Blake
2021-01-19 22:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
CDB 在 2021年1月19日 星期二下午10:54:37 [UTC+8] 的信中寫道：
Post by CDB
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
That use of "lips" doesn't seem at all idiomatic to me.
"Lip" can be used informally to mean "an insolent reply" ("And don't
give me any lip"), but that doesn't seem directly relevant to your
example. Where did you get it from?
Oh, have you heard the story told, Of Washington the brave and bold,
Of Washington who'd sooner die Than stain his lips to tell a lie?
I forgot to use possessive in my first two sentences.
Are they okay now?
No.
Post by Yurui Liu
Politicians, with their lips to tell lies, should be put in jail.
Politicians, with their lips telling lies, should be put in jail.
--
Ken
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-19 15:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
Are these sentences you invented? If so, don't do it.

It's not possible to help you with unidiomatic sentences.
--
athel
RH Draney
2021-01-19 21:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Yurui Liu
Are the following sentence correct? If so, what's the difference?
Politicians with lips to tell lies should be put in jail.
Politicians with lips telling lies should be put in jail.
I'd appreciate your help.
Are these sentences you invented? If so, don't do it.
It's not possible to help you with unidiomatic sentences.
Notwithstanding, if these sentence were to be uttered, the difference
would be that the first refers to politicians with lips capable of
telling lies, whether or not they actually do so...the second speaks
only of politicians whose lips are actually engaged in the telling of
lies....

The variants upthread, with the phrase "with [their] lips [etc]" set off
from the rest of the sentence by commas, imply strongly that all
politicians simply by virtue of being politicians, have such lips....r
Loading...