Discussion:
Fox News
(too old to reply)
Ken Blake
2021-01-19 20:51:34 UTC
Permalink
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;

"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."

What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
--
Ken
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-19 22:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
Several rereadings don't produce whatever it is that bothers Blake.
Peter Moylan
2021-01-20 00:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.

I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences - and,
in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can reasonably do so.

[1] At least, it's redundant if you know who the mother of Joe's
daughter is, but I imagine that that's the sort of thing that's known to
the Fox News audience.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
soup
2021-01-20 07:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences - and,
in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can reasonably do so.
Unlike Charles Dickens. As he was paid by the word, some of his
sentencing and phrases are long and drawn out.
Lewis
2021-01-20 12:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences - and,
in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can reasonably do so.
And there is the crux of your (both of yous) error, thinking that Fox
News employs journalists. Or editors.
--
'They've given us the answers,' he [Carrot] said. 'Perhaps we can
find out what the questions should have been.' --Feet of Clay
Sam Plusnet
2021-01-20 18:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences - and,
in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can reasonably do so.
And there is the crux of your (both of yous) error, thinking that Fox
News employs journalists. Or editors.
They might keep a journalist in a cupboard somewhere - for emergency use
only.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-20 15:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences - and,
in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can reasonably do so.
[1] At least, it's redundant if you know who the mother of Joe's
daughter is, but I imagine that that's the sort of thing that's known to
the Fox News audience.
Now, that raises a technicality. Joe's daughters are actually his step-daughters,
because they were fathered by Jill's first husband; but their marriage took place
when his boys and her girls were very young -- they're one kid short of a Brady
Bunch -- but they are a single family. Presumably adoption gave the girls the
same last name as their (now) father.
Bebercito
2021-01-20 18:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
But create another one for people (like me) who aren't aware of
whom Biden has married or not in his life, as he might have had
Ashley with another woman than Jill.

Incidentally, kudos to Latin, which had resolved the ambiguity of "her"
in this sentence with a distinction of "suus, sua" (his/her referring to the
subject of the main clause) and "cujus" (his/her referring to the subject
of a dependent clause).
Post by Peter Moylan
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences - and,
in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can reasonably do so.
[1] At least, it's redundant if you know who the mother of Joe's
daughter is, but I imagine that that's the sort of thing that's known to
the Fox News audience.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Quinn C
2021-01-21 01:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
But create another one for people (like me) who aren't aware of
whom Biden has married or not in his life, as he might have had
Ashley with another woman than Jill.
Incidentally, kudos to Latin, which had resolved the ambiguity of "her"
in this sentence with a distinction of "suus, sua" (his/her referring to the
subject of the main clause) and "cujus" (his/her referring to the subject
of a dependent clause).
Also in careful German (ihr[e]/deren)

Not all journalists are careful.
--
The country has its quota of fools and windbags; such people are
most prominent in politics, where their inherent weaknesses seem
less glaring and attract less ridicule than they would in other
walks of life. -- Robert Bothwell et.al.: Canada since 1945
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-20 19:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences - and,
in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can reasonably do so.
[1] At least, it's redundant if you know who the mother of Joe's
daughter is, but I imagine that that's the sort of thing that's known to
the Fox News audience.
Well, if you're going to look at it that way, it's even more certain that the
Fox News audience knew that Joe Biden was the President-elect (though
some may not have believed it), Melania Trump was the first lady, and
Jill Biden was the incoming first lady. At the time.
--
Jerry Friedman
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-01-20 20:04:43 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:33:48 GMT, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences -
and, in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can
reasonably do so.
[1] At least, it's redundant if you know who the mother of Joe's
daughter is, but I imagine that that's the sort of thing that's known
to the Fox News audience.
Well, if you're going to look at it that way, it's even more certain
that the Fox News audience knew that Joe Biden was the President-elect
(though some may not have believed it), Melania Trump was the first
lady, and Jill Biden was the incoming first lady. At the time.
Has wikipedia been updated yet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
"current president"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
"served as the 45th president"

yes; it hadn't been earlier this morning (9am GMT)

times up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_returns_of_Donald_Trump
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-20 20:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:33:48 GMT, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences -
and, in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can
reasonably do so.
[1] At least, it's redundant if you know who the mother of Joe's
daughter is, but I imagine that that's the sort of thing that's known
to the Fox News audience.
Well, if you're going to look at it that way, it's even more certain
that the Fox News audience knew that Joe Biden was the President-elect
(though some may not have believed it), Melania Trump was the first
lady, and Jill Biden was the incoming first lady. At the time.
Has wikipedia been updated yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
"current president"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
"served as the 45th president"
yes; it hadn't been earlier this morning (9am GMT)
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read. You got me curious. At the Wikiparticle
about him, the first change reflecting his new job was made at 4:48, but at
least one further change had to be made in the following minute.
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_returns_of_Donald_Trump
No indictments yet at Google News. What are they waiting for?
--
Jerry Friedman
Mark Brader
2021-01-21 00:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read.
No, he became the president at noon[1] EST[2]. Taking the oath enabled
him to *execute*[3] his powers as president. It's like being mailed a
new credit card, when they tell you that before using the card you must
go through a process of activating it.

I was surprised that he took the oath before his presidency started[1]:
I almost missed seeing it. I don't think it's been done that way in
other recent presidencies. But nothing specifies when he has to take
it. He could have done it any time after the election result was known.

[1] As specified in the 20th amendment to the Constitution.
[2] *Not* specified in the Constitution, but assumed to be the intent.
[3] As specified in Article II of the Constitution.

This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
--
Mark Brader That would be the opposite of "non idiotic",
Toronto assuming there's some good word for that.
***@vex.net --Ken Jennings

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-21 00:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read.
No, he became the president at noon[1] EST[2]. Taking the oath enabled
him to *execute*[3] his powers as president. It's like being mailed a
new credit card, when they tell you that before using the card you must
go through a process of activating it.
OK, thanks.
I almost missed seeing it.
I think a lot of people missed it or almost missed it. I did, but I just wanted
to make sure it had happened.
I don't think it's been done that way in
other recent presidencies. But nothing specifies when he has to take
it. He could have done it any time after the election result was known.
Why not before, preemptively? I suppose finding a judge to administer
it might be hard.
[1] As specified in the 20th amendment to the Constitution.
[2] *Not* specified in the Constitution, but assumed to be the intent.
[3] As specified in Article II of the Constitution.
With a subjunctive, no less. "Before he enter on the Execution of
his predecessor^W Office..."
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
--
Jerry Friedman
Mark Brader
2021-01-21 04:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
I almost missed seeing it... But nothing specifies when he has to take
it. He could have done it any time after the election result was known.
Why not before, preemptively? I suppose finding a judge to administer
it might be hard.
There's no requirement for anyone, let alone specifically a judge, to
administer it. Clearly there needs to be some way to prove it happened,
in case of later dispute, but a video recording would suffice.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Ken doesn't spell very well. Fortunately,
***@vex.net he has other virtues." -- Dennis Ritchie
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-01-21 17:45:28 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:52:48 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read.
No, he became the president at noon[1] EST[2]. Taking the oath enabled
him to *execute*[3] his powers as president. It's like being mailed a
new credit card, when they tell you that before using the card you must
go through a process of activating it.
OK, thanks.
I almost missed seeing it.
I think a lot of people missed it or almost missed it. I did, but I just wanted
to make sure it had happened.
I don't think it's been done that way in
other recent presidencies. But nothing specifies when he has to take
it. He could have done it any time after the election result was known.
Why not before, preemptively? I suppose finding a judge to administer
it might be hard.
[1] As specified in the 20th amendment to the Constitution.
[2] *Not* specified in the Constitution, but assumed to be the intent.
[3] As specified in Article II of the Constitution.
With a subjunctive, no less. "Before he enter on the Execution of
his predecessor^W Office..."
I recall from reports of a previous Inauguration that the then
President-elect had taken the oath in earlier in the day, not in public.
He then took it again during the Inauguration ceremony. This was a
precautionary procedure. If the ceremony had been delayed he would still
have been able to act as POTUS from noon onwards.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-21 17:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I recall from reports of a previous Inauguration that the then
President-elect had taken the oath in earlier in the day, not in public.
He then took it again during the Inauguration ceremony. This was a
precautionary procedure. If the ceremony had been delayed he would still
have been able to act as POTUS from noon onwards.
In 2009 CJOTUS Roberts messed up the wording of the oath, and Obama
tried to say the prescribed words, so that afternoon they did it again in
the White House in front of cameras so no one could claim he wasn't
"really" the President.

On the three occasions since then, Roberts has read the oath off
a printed text.
charles
2021-01-21 09:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read.
No, he became the president at noon[1] EST[2]. Taking the oath enabled
him to *execute*[3] his powers as president. It's like being mailed a
new credit card, when they tell you that before using the card you must
go through a process of activating it.
I almost missed seeing it. I don't think it's been done that way in
other recent presidencies. But nothing specifies when he has to take
it. He could have done it any time after the election result was known.
[1] As specified in the 20th amendment to the Constitution.
[2] *Not* specified in the Constitution, but assumed to be the intent.
[3] As specified in Article II of the Constitution.
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
The kingb is dead, longb live the king - as the saying goes.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-01-21 18:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read.
No, he became the president at noon[1] EST[2]. Taking the oath enabled
him to *execute*[3] his powers as president. It's like being mailed a
new credit card, when they tell you that before using the card you must
go through a process of activating it.
I almost missed seeing it. I don't think it's been done that way in
other recent presidencies. But nothing specifies when he has to take
it. He could have done it any time after the election result was known.
[1] As specified in the 20th amendment to the Constitution.
[2] *Not* specified in the Constitution, but assumed to be the intent.
[3] As specified in Article II of the Constitution.
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
In one case, at least, a British/whatever king reigned but was never
coronation-ed.

Edward VIII reigned from 20 January 1936 until he abdicated on 11
December 1936. His coronation had been scheduled for 12 May 1937.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
charles
2021-01-21 19:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read.
No, he became the president at noon[1] EST[2]. Taking the oath enabled
him to *execute*[3] his powers as president. It's like being mailed a
new credit card, when they tell you that before using the card you must
go through a process of activating it.
I almost missed seeing it. I don't think it's been done that way in
other recent presidencies. But nothing specifies when he has to take
it. He could have done it any time after the election result was known.
[1] As specified in the 20th amendment to the Constitution.
[2] *Not* specified in the Constitution, but assumed to be the intent.
[3] As specified in Article II of the Constitution.
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
In one case, at least, a British/whatever king reigned but was never
coronation-ed.
'crowned' is the correct word - coronation is the noun derived from that
verb, You don't need to try an derive another verb from that noun
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
RH Draney
2021-01-21 23:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In one case, at least, a British/whatever king reigned but was never
coronation-ed.
'crowned' is the correct word - coronation is the noun derived from that
verb, You don't need to try an derive another verb from that noun
In the 1966 edition of the "Cruisin'" album series, KJR disc jockey Pat
O'Day mentions some kind of festival at Puget Sound where one of the
events is the coronation of the festival's queen, then adds "go out and
watch a queen get coronated"....r
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-01-22 00:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by charles
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In one case, at least, a British/whatever king reigned but was never
coronation-ed.
'crowned' is the correct word - coronation is the noun derived from that
verb, You don't need to try an derive another verb from that noun
In the 1966 edition of the "Cruisin'" album series, KJR disc jockey Pat
O'Day mentions some kind of festival at Puget Sound where one of the
events is the coronation of the festival's queen, then adds "go out and
watch a queen get coronated"....r
I had initially intended to use "coronated" but it already exists so I
went for, the playful, "coronation-ed" instead.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madhu
2021-01-22 05:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by RH Draney
Post by charles
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In one case, at least, a British/whatever king reigned but was never
coronation-ed.
'crowned' is the correct word - coronation is the noun derived from that
verb, You don't need to try an derive another verb from that noun
In the 1966 edition of the "Cruisin'" album series, KJR disc jockey
Pat O'Day mentions some kind of festival at Puget Sound where one of
the events is the coronation of the festival's queen, then adds "go
out and watch a queen get coronated"....r
I had initially intended to use "coronated" but it already exists so I
went for, the playful, "coronation-ed" instead.
I checked lexico - "coronated" isn't available. There is a "coroneted"
but that involves a "coronet" a small crown but nevertheless not a
crown.

besides coronated has corona connotations
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-01-22 11:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madhu
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by RH Draney
Post by charles
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In one case, at least, a British/whatever king reigned but was never
coronation-ed.
'crowned' is the correct word - coronation is the noun derived from that
verb, You don't need to try an derive another verb from that noun
In the 1966 edition of the "Cruisin'" album series, KJR disc jockey
Pat O'Day mentions some kind of festival at Puget Sound where one of
the events is the coronation of the festival's queen, then adds "go
out and watch a queen get coronated"....r
I had initially intended to use "coronated" but it already exists so I
went for, the playful, "coronation-ed" instead.
I checked lexico - "coronated" isn't available. There is a "coroneted"
but that involves a "coronet" a small crown but nevertheless not a
crown.
The OED has this:

coronated, adj.

†1. Of flowers: Arranged in a whorl: cf. corone n.
1682 N. Grew Anat. Plants iv. ii. App. 175 Sometimes, they [sc.
Flowers] are placed round about the Branch, that is, Coronated, as
in Pulegium.

2. Botany and Zoology. Furnished with a corona, or something
resembling a crown; spec. in Conchology applied to spiral shells
which have their whorls surmounted by a row of spines or tubercles.

1698 - 1851
Post by Madhu
besides coronated has corona connotations
Indeed.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Quinn C
2021-01-22 15:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Madhu
besides coronated has corona connotations
Indeed.
One could even say corona connotations contaminate "coronate".
--
Democracy means government by the uneducated,
while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.
-- G. K. Chesterton
Ken Blake
2021-01-22 15:53:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read.
No, he became the president at noon[1] EST[2]. Taking the oath enabled
him to *execute*[3] his powers as president. It's like being mailed a
new credit card, when they tell you that before using the card you must
go through a process of activating it.
I almost missed seeing it. I don't think it's been done that way in
other recent presidencies. But nothing specifies when he has to take
it. He could have done it any time after the election result was known.
[1] As specified in the 20th amendment to the Constitution.
[2] *Not* specified in the Constitution, but assumed to be the intent.
[3] As specified in Article II of the Constitution.
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
In one case, at least, a British/whatever king reigned but was never
coronation-ed.
More than 98 million people have been corona-ated
--
Ken
Sam Plusnet
2021-01-21 20:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
We do need more research into the "Kingon" particle which must travel
faster than light in order to make this transfer instantaneous.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Tony Cooper
2021-01-21 20:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
We do need more research into the "Kingon" particle which must travel
faster than light in order to make this transfer instantaneous.
We, in the US, want the transference of power to be retroactive for
four years.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Sam Plusnet
2021-01-22 02:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
We do need more research into the "Kingon" particle which must travel
faster than light in order to make this transfer instantaneous.
We, in the US, want the transference of power to be retroactive for
four years.
But Joe Biden gets a huge amount of credit for not being the previous
President. You can't take that away from him now.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
RH Draney
2021-01-22 02:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
We do need more research into the "Kingon" particle which must travel
faster than light in order to make this transfer instantaneous.
We, in the US, want the transference of power to be retroactive for
four years.
But Joe Biden gets a huge amount of credit for not being the previous
President.  You can't take that away from him now.
Pretty sure he's not going to try to blame his problems on the Obama
administration like his predecessor did....r
Mack A. Damia
2021-01-22 05:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
We do need more research into the "Kingon" particle which must travel
faster than light in order to make this transfer instantaneous.
We, in the US, want the transference of power to be retroactive for
four years.
But Joe Biden gets a huge amount of credit for not being the previous
President.  You can't take that away from him now.
Pretty sure he's not going to try to blame his problems on the Obama
administration like his predecessor did....r
After one full day, Hannity on Fox News is touting, "Biden's
disastrous first week", expecting that their followers won't notice.
Peter Moylan
2021-01-22 06:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new
monarch takes power immediately when the previous one dies or
abdicates, and the coronation typically held on a later date is
entirely ceremonial.
We do need more research into the "Kingon" particle which must
travel faster than light in order to make this transfer
instantaneous.
The Australian convention is that a new government is recognised as soon
as the election result is certain. It is, however, crippled in its
powers until the new Cabinet is sworn in. This typically takes a couple
of weeks.

In 1972 we had a new Prime Minister who was in a hurry to overturn a
number of policies of the previous regime. In particular, pulling
Australian troops out of Vietnam, and releasing conscientious objectors
from prison. To achieve this, he formed a two-person Cabinet (himself
and the deputy PM) and had it sworn in as an interim Cabinet. That
allowed some quick executive decisions to be enacted. Two weeks later, a
more conventional Cabinet was sworn in.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-22 16:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new
monarch takes power immediately when the previous one dies or
abdicates, and the coronation typically held on a later date is
entirely ceremonial.
We do need more research into the "Kingon" particle which must
travel faster than light in order to make this transfer
instantaneous.
The Australian convention is that a new government is recognised as soon
as the election result is certain. It is, however, crippled in its
powers until the new Cabinet is sworn in. This typically takes a couple
of weeks.
We saw the pictures of Mrs May being kicked out of Number 10 so that
BJ could move in the day after the election.

(The White House staff -- 90, one report said -- have 2 1/2 months
to prepare the changeover, and it's accomplished in 5 hours on
Inauguration Day. An incidental benefit of having a set day for the
transition. A nice note: Biden replaced Jackson's portrait in the Oval
with Franklin, and also put Hamilton and Jefferson side by side.)
Post by Peter Moylan
In 1972 we had a new Prime Minister who was in a hurry to overturn a
number of policies of the previous regime. In particular, pulling
Australian troops out of Vietnam, and releasing conscientious objectors
from prison. To achieve this, he formed a two-person Cabinet (himself
and the deputy PM) and had it sworn in as an interim Cabinet. That
allowed some quick executive decisions to be enacted. Two weeks later, a
more conventional Cabinet was sworn in.
That can happen when you don't have a written constitution ...

Even t**** couldn't have gotten away with something like that.
Tony Cooper
2021-01-22 16:28:12 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 08:21:24 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new
monarch takes power immediately when the previous one dies or
abdicates, and the coronation typically held on a later date is
entirely ceremonial.
We do need more research into the "Kingon" particle which must
travel faster than light in order to make this transfer
instantaneous.
The Australian convention is that a new government is recognised as soon
as the election result is certain. It is, however, crippled in its
powers until the new Cabinet is sworn in. This typically takes a couple
of weeks.
We saw the pictures of Mrs May being kicked out of Number 10 so that
BJ could move in the day after the election.
(The White House staff -- 90, one report said -- have 2 1/2 months
to prepare the changeover, and it's accomplished in 5 hours on
Inauguration Day.
They missed one step. The Chief Usher, appointed by Trump, had been
fired and no replacement had been named. No one was there to open the
door for the Bidens.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter Moylan
2021-01-23 00:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
In 1972 we had a new Prime Minister who was in a hurry to overturn
a number of policies of the previous regime. In particular,
pulling Australian troops out of Vietnam, and releasing
conscientious objectors from prison. To achieve this, he formed a
two-person Cabinet (himself and the deputy PM) and had it sworn in
as an interim Cabinet. That allowed some quick executive decisions
to be enacted. Two weeks later, a more conventional Cabinet was
sworn in.
That can happen when you don't have a written constitution ...
Even t**** couldn't have gotten away with something like that.
It was quite legal according to our (written!) constitution.

Of course, the only actions they could take were those consistent with
the rules for Cabinet level executive decisions. Most policy changes
require a vote in Parliament. But the Defence Minister, for example, had
the power to move troops around without a vote. He also had the power to
grant exemptions to military conscription, so he gave exemptions to
everyone, thus ending conscription in effect if not precisely in law.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-23 16:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
In 1972 we had a new Prime Minister who was in a hurry to overturn
a number of policies of the previous regime. In particular,
pulling Australian troops out of Vietnam, and releasing
conscientious objectors from prison. To achieve this, he formed a
two-person Cabinet (himself and the deputy PM) and had it sworn in
as an interim Cabinet. That allowed some quick executive decisions
to be enacted. Two weeks later, a more conventional Cabinet was
sworn in.
That can happen when you don't have a written constitution ...
Even t**** couldn't have gotten away with something like that.
It was quite legal according to our (written!) constitution.
Ah ... it would be interesting to see how it's worded. That makes
it a problem of having a parliamentary system instead of a separate
Executive Branch.
Post by Peter Moylan
Of course, the only actions they could take were those consistent with
the rules for Cabinet level executive decisions. Most policy changes
require a vote in Parliament. But the Defence Minister, for example, had
the power to move troops around without a vote. He also had the power to
grant exemptions to military conscription, so he gave exemptions to
everyone, thus ending conscription in effect if not precisely in law.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-01-23 17:49:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 08:21:24 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new
monarch takes power immediately when the previous one dies or
abdicates, and the coronation typically held on a later date is
entirely ceremonial.
We do need more research into the "Kingon" particle which must
travel faster than light in order to make this transfer
instantaneous.
The Australian convention is that a new government is recognised as soon
as the election result is certain. It is, however, crippled in its
powers until the new Cabinet is sworn in. This typically takes a couple
of weeks.
We saw the pictures of Mrs May being kicked out of Number 10 so that
BJ could move in the day after the election.
There was no election, in the public sense. The Conservative party
remained in power.

There was a vote inside the Conservative party to choose a new leader
after Mrs May had announced her intention to resign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May#Resignation

On 24 May she confirmed that she would resign as Conservative Party
leader ... She continued to serve as prime minister until
she tendered her resignation to the Queen on 24 July. This coincided
with the arrival of Boris Johnson as prime minister, who was elected
by the Conservative Party membership.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(The White House staff -- 90, one report said -- have 2 1/2 months
to prepare the changeover, and it's accomplished in 5 hours on
Inauguration Day. An incidental benefit of having a set day for the
transition. A nice note: Biden replaced Jackson's portrait in the Oval
with Franklin, and also put Hamilton and Jefferson side by side.)
Post by Peter Moylan
In 1972 we had a new Prime Minister who was in a hurry to overturn a
number of policies of the previous regime. In particular, pulling
Australian troops out of Vietnam, and releasing conscientious objectors
from prison. To achieve this, he formed a two-person Cabinet (himself
and the deputy PM) and had it sworn in as an interim Cabinet. That
allowed some quick executive decisions to be enacted. Two weeks later, a
more conventional Cabinet was sworn in.
That can happen when you don't have a written constitution ...
Even t**** couldn't have gotten away with something like that.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-22 06:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
We do need more research into the "Kingon" particle which must travel
faster than light in order to make this transfer instantaneous.
If the next transfer occurs while Brenda is at Balmoral and Brian is
busy exploring Saturn in Elon Musk's space ship it may take enough time
for this to be a consideration, but normally it's too fast to be
measured, even when, for example, Brenda herself was in Kenya when she
took over.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-01-22 11:55:54 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 07:39:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
We do need more research into the "Kingon" particle which must travel
faster than light in order to make this transfer instantaneous.
If the next transfer occurs while Brenda is at Balmoral and Brian is
busy exploring Saturn in Elon Musk's space ship it may take enough time
for this to be a consideration, but normally it's too fast to be
measured, even when, for example, Brenda herself was in Kenya when she
took over.
The transfer is immediate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_Council

In the United Kingdom, the Accession Council is a ceremonial body
which assembles in St James's Palace upon the death of a monarch
(Demise of the Crown), to make formal proclamation of the accession
of the successor to the throne. Under the terms of the Act of
Settlement 1701, a new monarch succeeds automatically. The
proclamation merely confirms by name the identity of the heir who
has succeeded.

The new monarch has to attend a meeting of the Accession Council to
swear an oath. The oath relates to the (Presbyterian) Church of
Scotland.

If the monarch is not able to attend the meeting of the Council when the
formal proclamation is made there will be a second meeting of the
Council when (s)he will swear the oath.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-22 12:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 07:39:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
We do need more research into the "Kingon" particle which must travel>>
faster than light in order to make this transfer instantaneous.
If the next transfer occurs while Brenda is at Balmoral and Brian
is>busy exploring Saturn in Elon Musk's space ship it may take enough
time>for this to be a consideration, but normally it's too fast to
be>measured, even when, for example, Brenda herself was in Kenya when
she>took over.
The transfer is immediate.
Yes, but I think Sam's point (though he can correct me) was that
instantaneity has no meaning unless two events occur at the same place.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_Council
In the United Kingdom, the Accession Council is a ceremonial body
which assembles in St James's Palace upon the death of a monarch
(Demise of the Crown), to make formal proclamation of the accession
of the successor to the throne. Under the terms of the Act of
Settlement 1701, a new monarch succeeds automatically. The
proclamation merely confirms by name the identity of the heir who
has succeeded.
The new monarch has to attend a meeting of the Accession Council to
swear an oath. The oath relates to the (Presbyterian) Church of
Scotland.
If the monarch is not able to attend the meeting of the Council when the
formal proclamation is made there will be a second meeting of the
Council when (s)he will swear the oath.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-22 12:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 07:39:14 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Mark Brader
This procedure is different from our monarchy, where the new monarch
takes power immediately when the previous one dies or abdicates, and
the coronation typically held on a later date is entirely ceremonial.
We do need more research into the "Kingon" particle which must travel>>
faster than light in order to make this transfer instantaneous.
If the next transfer occurs while Brenda is at Balmoral and Brian
is>busy exploring Saturn in Elon Musk's space ship it may take enough
time>for this to be a consideration, but normally it's too fast to
be>measured, even when, for example, Brenda herself was in Kenya when
she>took over.
The transfer is immediate.
Yes, but I think Sam's point (though he can correct me) was that
instantaneity has no meaning unless two events occur at the same place.
It does hold for each observer in his proper frame.
There is no frame in which the magical transition
is not instantaneous,

Jan
Lewis
2021-01-21 05:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:33:48 GMT, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences -
and, in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can
reasonably do so.
[1] At least, it's redundant if you know who the mother of Joe's
daughter is, but I imagine that that's the sort of thing that's known
to the Fox News audience.
Well, if you're going to look at it that way, it's even more certain
that the Fox News audience knew that Joe Biden was the President-elect
(though some may not have believed it), Melania Trump was the first
lady, and Jill Biden was the incoming first lady. At the time.
Has wikipedia been updated yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
"current president"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
"served as the 45th president"
yes; it hadn't been earlier this morning (9am GMT)
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read.
This is incorrect. Joe Biden became President at 12:01pm EST. When he
was sworn in is of no relevance at all, and he did not become President
at 11:48am.

Had he waited to take the oath of office on Friday afternoon, he would
still have become President at 12:01pm EST on Wednesday.
--
The omnipotent eyesight of various supernatural entities is often
remarked upon. It is said that they can see the fall of every
sparrow. And this may be true. But there is only one who is
always there when it hits the ground. --Hogfather
Ken Blake
2021-01-21 14:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:33:48 GMT, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences -
and, in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can
reasonably do so.
[1] At least, it's redundant if you know who the mother of Joe's
daughter is, but I imagine that that's the sort of thing that's known
to the Fox News audience.
Well, if you're going to look at it that way, it's even more certain
that the Fox News audience knew that Joe Biden was the President-elect
(though some may not have believed it), Melania Trump was the first
lady, and Jill Biden was the incoming first lady. At the time.
Has wikipedia been updated yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
"current president"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
"served as the 45th president"
yes; it hadn't been earlier this morning (9am GMT)
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read.
This is incorrect. Joe Biden became President at 12:01pm EST. When he
was sworn in is of no relevance at all, and he did not become President
at 11:48am.
Had he waited to take the oath of office on Friday afternoon, he would
still have become President at 12:01pm EST on Wednesday.
Not to dispute that, since I have no knowledge of the rules, but can you
point to a citation that says that?
--
Ken
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-21 15:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:33:48 GMT, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences -
and, in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can
reasonably do so.
[1] At least, it's redundant if you know who the mother of Joe's
daughter is, but I imagine that that's the sort of thing that's known
to the Fox News audience.
Well, if you're going to look at it that way, it's even more certain
that the Fox News audience knew that Joe Biden was the President-elect
(though some may not have believed it), Melania Trump was the first
lady, and Jill Biden was the incoming first lady. At the time.
Has wikipedia been updated yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
"current president"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
"served as the 45th president"
yes; it hadn't been earlier this morning (9am GMT)
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read.
This is incorrect. Joe Biden became President at 12:01pm EST. When he
was sworn in is of no relevance at all, and he did not become President
at 11:48am.
Had he waited to take the oath of office on Friday afternoon, he would
still have become President at 12:01pm EST on Wednesday.
Not to dispute that, since I have no knowledge of the rules, but can you
point to a citation that says that?
Mark had already cited it to the 20th Amendment. It's Section 1:

"The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th
day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on
the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if
this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then
begin."
--
Jerry Friedman
Lewis
2021-01-21 21:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:33:48 GMT, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences -
and, in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can
reasonably do so.
[1] At least, it's redundant if you know who the mother of Joe's
daughter is, but I imagine that that's the sort of thing that's known
to the Fox News audience.
Well, if you're going to look at it that way, it's even more certain
that the Fox News audience knew that Joe Biden was the President-elect
(though some may not have believed it), Melania Trump was the first
lady, and Jill Biden was the incoming first lady. At the time.
Has wikipedia been updated yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
"current president"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
"served as the 45th president"
yes; it hadn't been earlier this morning (9am GMT)
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read.
This is incorrect. Joe Biden became President at 12:01pm EST. When he
was sworn in is of no relevance at all, and he did not become President
at 11:48am.
Had he waited to take the oath of office on Friday afternoon, he would
still have become President at 12:01pm EST on Wednesday.
Not to dispute that, since I have no knowledge of the rules, but can you
point to a citation that says that?
We covered this in some detail a month ago when someone posted (wrongly)
about Atchison being President of the US for a single day, he was not
and the reasons he was not is that the Oath has nothing to do with
assuming the office, only with assuming the execution of the duties.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rice_Atchison#Purported_one-day_presidency>

Covers it pretty well. Also, this predates the 20th Amendment that
clarified this further, "The terms of the President and Vice President
shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in
which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified;
and the terms of their successors shall then begin."
--
And she was drifting through the backyard And she was taking off her
dress And she was moving very slowly Rising up above the earth
Ken Blake
2021-01-22 16:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:33:48 GMT, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences -
and, in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can
reasonably do so.
[1] At least, it's redundant if you know who the mother of Joe's
daughter is, but I imagine that that's the sort of thing that's known
to the Fox News audience.
Well, if you're going to look at it that way, it's even more certain
that the Fox News audience knew that Joe Biden was the President-elect
(though some may not have believed it), Melania Trump was the first
lady, and Jill Biden was the incoming first lady. At the time.
Has wikipedia been updated yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
"current president"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
"served as the 45th president"
yes; it hadn't been earlier this morning (9am GMT)
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read.
This is incorrect. Joe Biden became President at 12:01pm EST. When he
was sworn in is of no relevance at all, and he did not become President
at 11:48am.
Had he waited to take the oath of office on Friday afternoon, he would
still have become President at 12:01pm EST on Wednesday.
Not to dispute that, since I have no knowledge of the rules, but can you
point to a citation that says that?
We covered this in some detail a month ago when someone posted (wrongly)
about Atchison being President of the US for a single day, he was not
and the reasons he was not is that the Oath has nothing to do with
assuming the office, only with assuming the execution of the duties.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rice_Atchison#Purported_one-day_presidency>
OK, but three points:

1. I'm not convinced that Wikipedia can be relied on for legal statements.

2. It says "Although an incoming president must take the oath of office
before any official acts." As far as I'm concerned, if he can't make
any official acts, he is effectively not yet president.

3. It also says "...the prevailing view is that presidential succession
does not depend on the oath." Two points about that:

a. Prevailing views are not necessarily correct.

b. As far as I'm concerned, that contradicts the first part of
the sentence.
Post by Lewis
Covers it pretty well.
Not to me.
Post by Lewis
Also, this predates the 20th Amendment that
clarified this further, "The terms of the President and Vice President
shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators
and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in
which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified;
and the terms of their successors shall then begin."
But yes, that clearly clarifies it. Thanks. I'm sure I read that before
and should have remembered it, but I didn't. Thanks.
--
Ken
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-22 21:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Also, one could argue that Biden already fulfilled the oath requirement
in 2008 and again in 2012 and the VP oath is the same.
No, it isn't. Someone wasn't paying attention on Wednesday. The
President's oath is spelled out in the Constitution, all 35 words of
it. The VP takes the same oath as every other Federal employee;
the same one that she administered shortly afterward to the three
new senators. It is fuller than the presidential oath.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-01-21 18:33:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:50:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 19:33:48 GMT, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it
is "unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a
White House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
"Her mother" is in any case redundant [1], and deleting it would both
improve the sentence and remove the ambiguity.
I would have thought journalists were taught to shorten sentences -
and, in particular, to remove redundancies - whenever they can
reasonably do so.
[1] At least, it's redundant if you know who the mother of Joe's
daughter is, but I imagine that that's the sort of thing that's known
to the Fox News audience.
Well, if you're going to look at it that way, it's even more certain
that the Fox News audience knew that Joe Biden was the President-elect
(though some may not have believed it), Melania Trump was the first
lady, and Jill Biden was the incoming first lady. At the time.
Has wikipedia been updated yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
"current president"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
"served as the 45th president"
yes; it hadn't been earlier this morning (9am GMT)
Biden didn't become the President till he was sworn in, which was at 11:48 AM
EST (4:48 PM GMT), or so I read.
This is incorrect. Joe Biden became President at 12:01pm EST. When he
was sworn in is of no relevance at all, and he did not become President
at 11:48am.
Had he waited to take the oath of office on Friday afternoon, he would
still have become President at 12:01pm EST on Wednesday.
However:

The wording of the oath is specified in Article II, Section One,
Clause 8, of the United States Constitution, and a new president
** must take it before exercising or carrying out any official powers
or duties.

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_president_of_the_United_States
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Dingbat
2021-01-21 03:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
--
Sentence A above has surnames that make it unambiguous but similarly constructed sentences could be ambiguous.

Suppose the sentence were shorter like so:

Sentence B: Ashley said it is unfortunate that Lana had not initiated a tour for her mother, Jill.

With the comma Jill is Ashley's mother.

Without a comma, Jill would be Lana's mother.

Now, consider sentence C.

Sentence C: Ashley said it is unfortunate that Lana had not initiated a tour for her mother, incoming comptroller Jill B.

In sentence C, it's the function of the comma that's ambiguous.

Introducing two kinds of comma depending on which function is served would resolve ambiguity.

There have been new kinds of comma proposed, the exclamation comma and question comma:

https://theweek.com/articles/471655/13-littleknown-punctuation-marks-should-using
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-21 15:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
--
Sentence A above has surnames that make it unambiguous but similarly constructed sentences could be ambiguous.
Sentence B: Ashley said it is unfortunate that Lana had not initiated a tour for her mother, Jill.
With the comma Jill is Ashley's mother.
Without a comma, Jill would be Lana's mother.
Assuming Ashley's female, I'd say that with the comma, it's ambiguous.
Without the comma, it's also ambiguous, but it says unambiguously that
the writer doesn't believe that a comma can make the difference between
restrictive and non-restrictive. (Well, unless Ashley or Jill has more than
one mother.)
Post by Dingbat
Now, consider sentence C.
Sentence C: Ashley said it is unfortunate that Lana had not initiated a tour for her mother, incoming comptroller Jill B.
In sentence C, it's the function of the comma that's ambiguous.
I don't get that.

I do see that the writer is a journalist, probably an American.
Post by Dingbat
Introducing two kinds of comma depending on which function is served would resolve ambiguity.
https://theweek.com/articles/471655/13-littleknown-punctuation-marks-should-using
Is there any reason to think either would help here?, I'd like to know.
--
Jerry Friedman
Dingbat
2021-01-22 05:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the invitation hasn't always been accepted.

When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea, Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That was an anecdote I got verbally.

This article has something on Harry's racism:
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
Tony Cooper
2021-01-22 05:38:05 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:26:13 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea, Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That was an anecdote I got verbally.
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
Mamie did not seem to consider it a problem to meet with Bess at the
White House.

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-first-lady-bess-truman-greets-soon-to-be-first-news-photo/639337698

Note the line that identifies the shot:
American First Lady Bess Truman (left) greets soon-to-be First Lady
Mamie Eisenhower at the White House, Washington DC, Janaury 1952.
(Photo by PhotoQuest/Getty Images)

Getty slipped up with a typo there in the spelling of the date.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-22 06:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:26:13 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the
invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea,
Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That
was an anecdote I got verbally.
How else could it be? Mimed? Wordless cartoon? Silent film?
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Dingbat
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
Mamie did not seem to consider it a problem to meet with Bess at the
White House.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-first-lady-bess-truman-greets-soon-to-be-first-news-photo/639337698
American First Lady Bess Truman (left) greets soon-to-be First Lady
Mamie Eisenhower at the White House, Washington DC, Janaury 1952.
(Photo by PhotoQuest/Getty Images)
Getty slipped up with a typo there in the spelling of the date.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-22 07:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:26:13 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the
invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea,
Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That
was an anecdote I got verbally.
How else could it be? Mimed? Wordless cartoon? Silent film?
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Dingbat
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
Mamie did not seem to consider it a problem to meet with Bess at the
White House.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-first-lady-bess-truman-greets-soon-to-be-first-news-photo/639337698
American First Lady Bess Truman (left) greets soon-to-be First Lady
Mamie Eisenhower at the White House, Washington DC, Janaury 1952.
(Photo by PhotoQuest/Getty Images)
Getty slipped up with a typo there in the spelling of the date.
I think it's usually a mistake to judge people of the past (even in our
lifetimes), by today's standards. Abraham Lincoln isn't usually
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am
not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of
negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with
white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a
physical difference between the white and black races which I believe
will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social
and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen,
to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a
perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-22 15:15:02 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, January 22, 2021 at 12:34:16 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

[the Trumans' racial views]
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I think it's usually a mistake to judge people of the past (even in our
lifetimes), by today's standards. Abraham Lincoln isn't usually
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am
not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of
negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with
white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a
physical difference between the white and black races which I believe
will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social
and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen,
to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a
perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.
I think that quotation and maybe others like it have been getting more
publicity these days, and there are a fair number of people who regarded
Lincoln as a racist.
--
Jerry Friedman
Ken Blake
2021-01-22 15:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[the Trumans' racial views]
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I think it's usually a mistake to judge people of the past (even in our
lifetimes), by today's standards. Abraham Lincoln isn't usually
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am
not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of
negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with
white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a
physical difference between the white and black races which I believe
will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social
and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen,
to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a
perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.
I think that quotation and maybe others like it have been getting more
publicity these days, and there are a fair number of people who regarded
Lincoln as a racist.
I never thought of Lincoln as a racist, but I had never seen that
quotation before. If he said that, then as far as I'm concerned he
clearly *was* a racist.
--
Ken
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-22 17:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Jerry Friedman
[the Trumans' racial views]
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I think it's usually a mistake to judge people of the past (even in our
lifetimes), by today's standards. Abraham Lincoln isn't usually
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am
not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of
negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with
white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a
physical difference between the white and black races which I believe
will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social
and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen,
to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a
perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.
I think that quotation and maybe others like it have been getting more
publicity these days, and there are a fair number of people who regarded
Lincoln as a racist.
I never thought of Lincoln as a racist, but I had never seen that
quotation before. If he said that, then as far as I'm concerned he
clearly *was* a racist.
Or just another American politician,
who says what his present audience wants to hear,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-22 17:35:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Jerry Friedman
[the Trumans' racial views]
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I think it's usually a mistake to judge people of the past (even in our
lifetimes), by today's standards. Abraham Lincoln isn't usually
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am
not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of
negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with
white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a
physical difference between the white and black races which I believe
will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social
and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen,
to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a
perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.
I think that quotation and maybe others like it have been getting more
publicity these days, and there are a fair number of people who regarded
Lincoln as a racist.
I never thought of Lincoln as a racist, but I had never seen that
quotation before. If he said that, then as far as I'm concerned he
clearly *was* a racist.
Or just another American politician,
who says what his present audience wants to hear,
I don't think that property of politicians is unique to Americans.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-22 20:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Jerry Friedman
[the Trumans' racial views]
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I think it's usually a mistake to judge people of the past (even in our
lifetimes), by today's standards. Abraham Lincoln isn't usually
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am
not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of
negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with
white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a
physical difference between the white and black races which I believe
will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social
and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen,
to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a
perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.
I think that quotation and maybe others like it have been getting more
publicity these days, and there are a fair number of people who regarded
Lincoln as a racist.
I never thought of Lincoln as a racist, but I had never seen that
quotation before. If he said that, then as far as I'm concerned he
clearly *was* a racist.
Or just another American politician,
who says what his present audience wants to hear,
I don't think that property of politicians is unique to Americans.
No, it really is theirs.
Ours are just being flexible,

Jan
Peter Moylan
2021-01-23 02:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
I never thought of Lincoln as a racist, but I had never seen that
quotation before. If he said that, then as far as I'm concerned he
clearly *was* a racist.
Or just another American politician,
who says what his present audience wants to hear,
I don't think that property of politicians is unique to Americans.
No, it really is theirs.
Ours are just being flexible,
I am flexible
You are hypocritical
He is a liar.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Tony Cooper
2021-01-23 03:38:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 13:33:46 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
I never thought of Lincoln as a racist, but I had never seen that
quotation before. If he said that, then as far as I'm concerned he
clearly *was* a racist.
Or just another American politician,
who says what his present audience wants to hear,
I don't think that property of politicians is unique to Americans.
No, it really is theirs.
Ours are just being flexible,
I am flexible
You are hypocritical
He is a liar.
I like that "flexible" designaton. Politicians are flexible as a
contortionist.

We often read about a politician "pivoting" on an issue. Roughly
translated, that can mean he or she has done a complete turn-around
and is now fully committed to the opposite of his or her first
position.

It's a finger-to-the-wind political stance.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter Moylan
2021-01-23 05:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
We often read about a politician "pivoting" on an issue. Roughly
translated, that can mean he or she has done a complete turn-around
and is now fully committed to the opposite of his or her first
position.
It's a finger-to-the-wind political stance.
I have seen that described as "doing a three hundred and sixty degree
turn". Obviously written by someone who went into journalism because
they were no good at mathematics.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Dingbat
2021-01-23 06:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
We often read about a politician "pivoting" on an issue. Roughly
translated, that can mean he or she has done a complete turn-around
and is now fully committed to the opposite of his or her first
position.
It's a finger-to-the-wind political stance.
I have seen that described as "doing a three hundred and sixty degree
turn". Obviously written by someone who went into journalism because
they were no good at mathematics.
--
Just in case they might find larger numbers better, correct it to a 540 degree turn.
Lewis
2021-01-23 11:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter Moylan
We often read about a politician "pivoting" on an issue. Roughly
translated, that can mean he or she has done a complete turn-around
and is now fully committed to the opposite of his or her first
position.
It's a finger-to-the-wind political stance.
I have seen that described as "doing a three hundred and sixty degree
turn". Obviously written by someone who went into journalism because
they were no good at mathematics.
--
Just in case they might find larger numbers better, correct it to a 540 degree turn.
I am a big fan of the 900, first because it is a challenging atheletic
skill in sports like skating (skateboard), but also because I like the
image of someone spinning around 2.5 times before ending up in the
opposite direction.

I saw the first (and for years the only) 900, though a few people have
duplicated it since then. A very few.
--
I went to a restaurant that serves "breakfast at any time". So I
ordered French Toast during the Renaissance.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-23 11:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter Moylan
We often read about a politician "pivoting" on an issue. Roughly
translated, that can mean he or she has done a complete turn-around
and is now fully committed to the opposite of his or her first
position.
It's a finger-to-the-wind political stance.
I have seen that described as "doing a three hundred and sixty degree
turn". Obviously written by someone who went into journalism because
they were no good at mathematics.
--
Just in case they might find larger numbers better, correct it to a 540 degree turn.
I am a big fan of the 900, first because it is a challenging atheletic
skill in sports like skating (skateboard), but also because I like the
image of someone spinning around 2.5 times before ending up in the
opposite direction.
I saw the first (and for years the only) 900, though a few people have
duplicated it since then. A very few.
I can't offer 900°, or even 540°, but if you drive to Marseilles from
the north and want to continue along the coast you'll need to make a
450° turn when you emerge from the tunnel under the entrance to the Old
Port.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-23 12:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter Moylan
We often read about a politician "pivoting" on an issue. Roughly
translated, that can mean he or she has done a complete turn-around
and is now fully committed to the opposite of his or her first
position.
It's a finger-to-the-wind political stance.
I have seen that described as "doing a three hundred and sixty degree
turn". Obviously written by someone who went into journalism because
they were no good at mathematics.
--
Just in case they might find larger numbers better, correct it to a 540 degree turn.
I am a big fan of the 900, first because it is a challenging atheletic
skill in sports like skating (skateboard), but also because I like the
image of someone spinning around 2.5 times before ending up in the
opposite direction.
I saw the first (and for years the only) 900, though a few people have
duplicated it since then. A very few.
I can't offer 900°, or even 540°, but if you drive to Marseilles from
the north and want to continue along the coast you'll need to make a
450° turn when you emerge from the tunnel under the entrance to the Old
Port.
Long ago a friend of mine had a model railroad with a 4320^o turn.
It started on the table, and climbed to well above door level,
to continue arond the room, until finally descending again.
The spiral was hidden under a model mountain.

There are less extreme real life examples in the Alps where
real trains do just that. (but for a smaller number of turns)
Similar ones no doubt exist elsewhere too,

Jan
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-01-23 12:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter Moylan
We often read about a politician "pivoting" on an issue. Roughly
translated, that can mean he or she has done a complete
turn-around and is now fully committed to the opposite of his or
her first position.
It's a finger-to-the-wind political stance.
I have seen that described as "doing a three hundred and sixty
degree turn". Obviously written by someone who went into
journalism because they were no good at mathematics.
--
Just in case they might find larger numbers better, correct it to
a 540 degree turn.
I am a big fan of the 900, first because it is a challenging
atheletic skill in sports like skating (skateboard), but also
because I like the image of someone spinning around 2.5 times
before ending up in the opposite direction.
I saw the first (and for years the only) 900, though a few people
have duplicated it since then. A very few.
I can't offer 900°, or even 540°, but if you drive to Marseilles from
the north and want to continue along the coast you'll need to make a
450° turn when you emerge from the tunnel under the entrance to the
Old Port.
Long ago a friend of mine had a model railroad with a 4320^o turn.
It started on the table, and climbed to well above door level,
to continue arond the room, until finally descending again.
The spiral was hidden under a model mountain.
There are less extreme real life examples in the Alps where
real trains do just that. (but for a smaller number of turns)
Similar ones no doubt exist elsewhere too,
And motorways. I was a bit nonplussed (sp?) when I first saw a route with
a loop in it; but when you see the height differential It All Makes
Sense.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
charles
2021-01-23 13:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter Moylan
We often read about a politician "pivoting" on an issue. Roughly
translated, that can mean he or she has done a complete turn-around
and is now fully committed to the opposite of his or her first
position.
It's a finger-to-the-wind political stance.
I have seen that described as "doing a three hundred and sixty
degree turn". Obviously written by someone who went into journalism
because they were no good at mathematics. --
Just in case they might find larger numbers better, correct it to a
540 degree turn.
I am a big fan of the 900, first because it is a challenging atheletic
skill in sports like skating (skateboard), but also because I like the
image of someone spinning around 2.5 times before ending up in the
opposite direction.
I saw the first (and for years the only) 900, though a few people have
duplicated it since then. A very few.
I can't offer 900°, or even 540°, but if you drive to Marseilles from
the north and want to continue along the coast you'll need to make a
450° turn when you emerge from the tunnel under the entrance to the Old
Port.
Long ago a friend of mine had a model railroad with a 4320^o turn.
It started on the table, and climbed to well above door level,
to continue arond the room, until finally descending again.
The spiral was hidden under a model mountain.
There are less extreme real life examples in the Alps where
real trains do just that. (but for a smaller number of turns)
Similar ones no doubt exist elsewhere too,
met on in South Africa
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-23 17:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter Moylan
We often read about a politician "pivoting" on an issue. Roughly
translated, that can mean he or she has done a complete turn-around
and is now fully committed to the opposite of his or her first
position.
It's a finger-to-the-wind political stance.
I have seen that described as "doing a three hundred and sixty
degree turn". Obviously written by someone who went into journalism
because they were no good at mathematics. --
Just in case they might find larger numbers better, correct it to a
540 degree turn.
I am a big fan of the 900, first because it is a challenging atheletic
skill in sports like skating (skateboard), but also because I like the
image of someone spinning around 2.5 times before ending up in the
opposite direction.
I saw the first (and for years the only) 900, though a few people have
duplicated it since then. A very few.
I can't offer 900°, or even 540°, but if you drive to Marseilles from
the north and want to continue along the coast you'll need to make a
450° turn when you emerge from the tunnel under the entrance to the Old
Port.
Long ago a friend of mine had a model railroad with a 4320^o turn.
It started on the table, and climbed to well above door level,
to continue arond the room, until finally descending again.
The spiral was hidden under a model mountain.
There are less extreme real life examples in the Alps where
real trains do just that. (but for a smaller number of turns)
Similar ones no doubt exist elsewhere too,
met on in South Africa
There is one there, indeed.
As expected, Wikipedia gives a long list of them all.
Most of them are in Switzerland.

Record holder by number of turns, for cars,
seems to be the Drammen Spiral in Norway,
at six complete turns.
(parking garages excepted of course)

Curious history: the quarrying company was not allowed
to disfigure the landscape, so they quarried a tunnel instead.
That would be a great idea in other places too,

Jan
--
The dullest video you ever saw (3:30)

charles
2021-01-23 17:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
In message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
We often read about a politician "pivoting" on an issue.
Roughly translated, that can mean he or she has done a
complete turn-around and is now fully committed to the
opposite of his or her first position.
It's a finger-to-the-wind political stance.
I have seen that described as "doing a three hundred and sixty
degree turn". Obviously written by someone who went into
journalism because they were no good at mathematics. --
Just in case they might find larger numbers better, correct it
to a 540 degree turn.
I am a big fan of the 900, first because it is a challenging
atheletic skill in sports like skating (skateboard), but also
because I like the image of someone spinning around 2.5 times
before ending up in the opposite direction.
I saw the first (and for years the only) 900, though a few people
have duplicated it since then. A very few.
I can't offer 900°, or even 540°, but if you drive to Marseilles
from the north and want to continue along the coast you'll need to
make a 450° turn when you emerge from the tunnel under the entrance
to the Old Port.
Long ago a friend of mine had a model railroad with a 4320^o turn. It
started on the table, and climbed to well above door level, to
continue arond the room, until finally descending again. The spiral
was hidden under a model mountain.
There are less extreme real life examples in the Alps where real
trains do just that. (but for a smaller number of turns) Similar ones
no doubt exist elsewhere too,
met one in South Africa
There is one there, indeed. As expected, Wikipedia gives a long list of
them all. Most of them are in Switzerland.
Record holder by number of turns, for cars, seems to be the Drammen
Spiral in Norway, at six complete turns. (parking garages excepted of
course)
Curious history: the quarrying company was not allowed to disfigure the
landscape, so they quarried a tunnel instead. That would be a great idea
in other places too,
Jan
memories of using the Tyne Tunnel yeara ago; I'm suer went went in a circle
down and up.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Mark Brader
2021-01-23 06:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
I have seen that described as "doing a three hundred and sixty degree
turn". Obviously written by someone who went into journalism because
they were no good at mathematics.
As I posted here in 2005, a friend of mine once told me that someone
had said "360 degrees" when he meant "180 degrees", but then paused
and corrected it -- to "365 degrees"!
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "If we gave people a choice, there would be chaos."
***@vex.net | -- Dick McDonald
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-23 11:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 13:33:46 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
I never thought of Lincoln as a racist, but I had never seen that
quotation before. If he said that, then as far as I'm concerned he
clearly *was* a racist.
Or just another American politician,
who says what his present audience wants to hear,
I don't think that property of politicians is unique to Americans.
No, it really is theirs.
Ours are just being flexible,
I am flexible
You are hypocritical
He is a liar.
I like that "flexible" designaton. Politicians are flexible as a
contortionist.
We often read about a politician "pivoting" on an issue. Roughly
translated, that can mean he or she has done a complete turn-around
and is now fully committed to the opposite of his or her first
position.
It's a finger-to-the-wind political stance.
That's much less of a problem in Europe.
You have nearly content free political parties,
as seen from an European perspective.
(just nuances of being far right and/or extreme right)

European political parties tend to be organised
on basis of a political program.
The program says what the party stands for,
and what it wants to accomplish.
The program also defines where they stand wrt other parties.
It is established by vote their membership conferences.

Politicians can be flexible,
but only within the limits of their party program.
(on pain of having a very unpleasant next party conference)

So Mr. Rutte has been flexible indeed,
but he can only be flexible because his party as a whole is flexible.
His positions have always been mainstream, for his party,

Jan
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-23 11:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
I never thought of Lincoln as a racist, but I had never seen that
quotation before. If he said that, then as far as I'm concerned he
clearly *was* a racist.
Or just another American politician,
who says what his present audience wants to hear,
I don't think that property of politicians is unique to Americans.
No, it really is theirs.
Ours are just being flexible,
I am flexible
You are hypocritical
He is a liar.
That's about it,

Jan
Lewis
2021-01-22 15:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:26:13 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the
invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea,
Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That
was an anecdote I got verbally.
How else could it be? Mimed? Wordless cartoon? Silent film?
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Dingbat
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
Mamie did not seem to consider it a problem to meet with Bess at the
White House.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-first-lady-bess-truman-greets-soon-to-be-first-news-photo/639337698
American First Lady Bess Truman (left) greets soon-to-be First Lady
Mamie Eisenhower at the White House, Washington DC, Janaury 1952.
(Photo by PhotoQuest/Getty Images)
Getty slipped up with a typo there in the spelling of the date.
I think it's usually a mistake to judge people of the past
Depends. Wilson was a fucking racist piece of shit in any age, and his
being one of the most racist Presidents we've ever had is not excused by
when he was President.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
(even in our lifetimes), by today's standards. Abraham Lincoln isn't
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am
This also ignores the fact that Lincoln's position changed.

I know that the recent¹ wave on neo-fascist conservatism has tried to
paint changing your mind as a weakness (because it is to their
absolutist views) but this was NOT Lincoln's position at the end of the
Civil War. It was not his position when he signed the Emancipation
Proclamation. It was not his position when he got the 13th Amendment
passed.

¹ 40 years or so.
--
Margo: He’s called the Dark King.
Eliot: You’re called Margo the Destroyer.
Margo: I was a woman ruling a patriarchy; my brand had to be overkill.
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-22 22:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:26:13 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the
invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea,
Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That
was an anecdote I got verbally.
How else could it be? Mimed? Wordless cartoon? Silent film?
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Dingbat
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
Mamie did not seem to consider it a problem to meet with Bess at the
White House.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-first-lady-bess-truman-greets-soon-to-be-first-news-photo/639337698
American First Lady Bess Truman (left) greets soon-to-be First Lady
Mamie Eisenhower at the White House, Washington DC, Janaury 1952.
(Photo by PhotoQuest/Getty Images)
Getty slipped up with a typo there in the spelling of the date.
I think it's usually a mistake to judge people of the past
Depends. Wilson was a fucking racist piece of shit in any age, and his
being one of the most racist Presidents we've ever had is not excused by
when he was President.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
(even in our lifetimes), by today's standards. Abraham Lincoln isn't
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am
This also ignores the fact that Lincoln's position changed.
I know that the recent¹ wave on neo-fascist conservatism has tried to
paint changing your mind as a weakness (because it is to their
absolutist views) but this was NOT Lincoln's position at the end of the
Civil War. It was not his position when he signed the Emancipation
Proclamation. It was not his position when he got the 13th Amendment
passed.
¹ 40 years or so.
In his last speech, three days before he was shot, he said he was willing to
accept a plan for a reconstructed Louisiana in order to get reconstruction
moving, despite an argument against the plan: "It is also unsatisfactory to
some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would
myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those
who serve our cause as soldiers." So yes, he was willing to let some black
men vote, but not all. He didn't say anything about restricting the franchise to
"the very intelligent" among white people.

(According to the page where I found this, John Wilkes Booth was in the
audience, and said, "That is the last speech he will make.")

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/last.htm

LIncoln was always in favor of sending African Americans out of the country.
He never stated that in public after the Emancipation Proclamation, but "Four
days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed
on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America’s race problem.
'I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can
get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to
some fertile country…'"

https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2010/12/01/lincoln-to-slaves-go-somewhere-else/

Most African Americans were not in favor of that solution.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2021-01-23 02:37:24 UTC
Permalink
[Quoting Lincoln:] "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the
elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself
prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on
those who serve our cause as soldiers." So yes, he was willing to
let some black men vote, but not all. He didn't say anything about
restricting the franchise to "the very intelligent" among white
people.
Wow. That short of restriction would completely change the politics of
many countries.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-23 11:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
[Quoting Lincoln:] "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the
elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself
prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on
those who serve our cause as soldiers." So yes, he was willing to
let some black men vote, but not all. He didn't say anything about
restricting the franchise to "the very intelligent" among white
people.
Wow. That short of restriction would completely change the politics of
many countries.
I think MENSA has been in favour of it,
sometime, someplace, and probably still,
without daring to say so openly,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-23 11:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter Moylan
[Quoting Lincoln:] "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the
elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself
prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on
those who serve our cause as soldiers." So yes, he was willing to
let some black men vote, but not all. He didn't say anything about
restricting the franchise to "the very intelligent" among white
people.
Wow. That short of restriction would completely change the politics of
many countries.
I think MENSA has been in favour of it,
sometime, someplace, and probably still,
without daring to say so openly,
We have a MENSA member in this group who probably knows: Ron, are you there?
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-23 17:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter Moylan
[Quoting Lincoln:] "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the
elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself
prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on
those who serve our cause as soldiers." So yes, he was willing to
let some black men vote, but not all. He didn't say anything about
restricting the franchise to "the very intelligent" among white
people.
Wow. That short of restriction would completely change the politics of
many countries.
I think MENSA has been in favour of it,
sometime, someplace, and probably still,
without daring to say so openly,
Robert Heinlein floated a similar suggestion, among others for restricting
the franchise, in comments on /Starship Troopers/.

"A state that required a bare minimum of intelligence and education –
e.g., step into the polling booth and find that the computer has generated
a new quadratic equation just for you. Solve it, the computer unlocks the
voting machine, you vote. But get a wrong answer and the voting machine
fails to unlock, a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth –
and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid
and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups. Better luck
next election! No lower age limit in this system – smart 12-yr-old girls
vote every election while some of their mothers – and fathers – decline
to be humiliated twice.

"There are endless variations on this one. Here are two: Improving the
Breed — No red light, no bell…but the booth opens automatically – empty.
Revenue — You don’t risk your life, just some gelt. It costs you 1/4 oz.
troy of gold in local currency to enter the booth. Solve your quadratic and
vote, and you get your money back. Flunk – and the state keeps it. With
this one I guarantee that no one would vote who was not interested and
would be most unlikely to vote if unsure of his ability to get that hundred
bucks back."
--
Jerry Friedman
Mack A. Damia
2021-01-23 17:52:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 09:18:11 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter Moylan
[Quoting Lincoln:] "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the
elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself
prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on
those who serve our cause as soldiers." So yes, he was willing to
let some black men vote, but not all. He didn't say anything about
restricting the franchise to "the very intelligent" among white
people.
Wow. That short of restriction would completely change the politics of
many countries.
I think MENSA has been in favour of it,
sometime, someplace, and probably still,
without daring to say so openly,
Robert Heinlein floated a similar suggestion, among others for restricting
the franchise, in comments on /Starship Troopers/.
"A state that required a bare minimum of intelligence and education –
e.g., step into the polling booth and find that the computer has generated
a new quadratic equation just for you. Solve it, the computer unlocks the
voting machine, you vote. But get a wrong answer and the voting machine
fails to unlock, a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth –
and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid
and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups. Better luck
next election! No lower age limit in this system – smart 12-yr-old girls
vote every election while some of their mothers – and fathers – decline
to be humiliated twice.
"Gnut," he said earnestly, holding carefully the limp body in his
arms, "you must do one thing for me. Listen carefully. I want you to
tell your master – the master yet to come – that what happened to the
first Klaatu was an accident, for which all Earth is immeasurably
sorry. Will you do that?"

"I have known it," the robot answered gently.

"But will you promise to tell your master – just those words – as soon
as he is arrived?"

"You misunderstand," said Gnut, still gently, and quietly spoke four
more words. As Cliff heard them a mist passed over his eyes and his
body went numb.

As he recovered and his eyes came back to focus he saw the great ship
disappear. It just suddenly was not there anymore. He fell back a step
or two. In his ears, like great bells, rang Gnut's last words. Never,
never was he to disclose them til the day he came to die.

"You misunderstand," the mighty robot had said. "I am the master."

("Farewell to the Master", Harry Bates)
Quinn C
2021-01-23 19:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter Moylan
[Quoting Lincoln:] "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the
elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself
prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on
those who serve our cause as soldiers." So yes, he was willing to
let some black men vote, but not all. He didn't say anything about
restricting the franchise to "the very intelligent" among white
people.
Wow. That short of restriction would completely change the politics of
many countries.
I think MENSA has been in favour of it,
sometime, someplace, and probably still,
without daring to say so openly,
MENSA as an organization doesn't carry political opinions. It wouldn't
surprise me if MENSAns are statistically more likely to be in favor of
such a requirement, but they're all individuals.
--
CW: Historical misogyny
Jbzna vf n cnve bs binevrf jvgu n uhzna orvat nggnpurq, jurernf
zna vf n uhzna orvat sheavfurq jvgu n cnve bs grfgrf.
-- Rudolf Virchow
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-23 08:54:37 UTC
Permalink
On 2021-01-22 22:49:25 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:


[ … ]
Post by Jerry Friedman
n his last speech, three days before he was shot, he said he was willing to
accept a plan for a reconstructed Louisiana in order to get reconstruction
moving, despite an argument against the plan: "It is also unsatisfactory to
some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would
myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those
who serve our cause as soldiers." So yes, he was willing to let some black
men vote, but not all. He didn't say anything about restricting the franchise to
"the very intelligent" among white people.
(According to the page where I found this, John Wilkes Booth was in the
audience, and said, "That is the last speech he will make.")
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/last.htm
LIncoln was always in favor of sending African Americans out of the country.
He never stated that in public after the Emancipation Proclamation, but "Four
days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed
on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America’s race problem.
'I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can
get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to
some fertile country…'"
https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2010/12/01/lincoln-to-slaves-go-somewhere-else/
Most African Americans were not in favor of that solution.
Gosh. I wonder why not. Then again, very few Jews were keen on the idea
of being shipped off to Madagascar (whose inhabitants were not, I
think, asked about their thoughts on the proposal).
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Lewis
2021-01-23 10:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
I know that the recent¹ wave on neo-fascist conservatism has tried to
paint changing your mind as a weakness (because it is to their
absolutist views) but this was NOT Lincoln's position at the end of the
Civil War. It was not his position when he signed the Emancipation
Proclamation. It was not his position when he got the 13th Amendment
passed.
¹ 40 years or so.
In his last speech, three days before he was shot, he said he was willing to
accept a plan for a reconstructed Louisiana in order to get reconstruction
moving, despite an argument against the plan: "It is also unsatisfactory to
some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would
myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those
who serve our cause as soldiers." So yes, he was willing to let some black
men vote,
Quite the opposite, he was willing to not enfranchise them all in order
to get things moving in Louisiana. He was a politician and he was trying
to put the country back together.

But again, you are projecting NOW to then and assuming that as things
are now and as we understand things NOW is who things should always have
been in the past and that what we think now is how people should alwys
have thought.
Post by Jerry Friedman
(According to the page where I found this, John Wilkes Booth was in the
audience, and said, "That is the last speech he will make.")
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/last.htm
LIncoln was always in favor of sending African Americans out of the country.
He never stated that in public after the Emancipation Proclamation, but "Four
days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed
on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America’s race problem.
'I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can
get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to
some fertile country…'"
And looking at the last 160 years it is pretty much impossible to argue
that he was wrong, as the US is still astoundingly racist and no one
could say, with a straight face, that the South and North have really
lived in peace since the end of the Civil War.
Post by Jerry Friedman
https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2010/12/01/lincoln-to-slaves-go-somewhere-else/
Most African Americans were not in favor of that solution.
Most _____ (fill in with anything at all) where not in favor of the
13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments either, and only blacks were in favor of
the 13th, though most didn't even know about it.

Now go read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.

"Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge
of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until
all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of
unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with
the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said
three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the
Lord, are true and righteous altogether.

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the
right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the
work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who
shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do
all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among
ourselves, and with all nations."

And, just for a second, try to imagine what someone 150+ years in the
future might think about some of your positions now. Chances are very
good (I'd say 100%) that something you consider perfectly usual and
normal right now will be viewed with horror by people in the mid 23rd
century, to say nothing of something that right now you see as a problem
with no good solutions.
--
May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-23 18:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
I know that the recent¹ wave on neo-fascist conservatism has tried to
paint changing your mind as a weakness (because it is to their
absolutist views) but this was NOT Lincoln's position at the end of the
Civil War. It was not his position when he signed the Emancipation
Proclamation. It was not his position when he got the 13th Amendment
passed.
¹ 40 years or so.
In his last speech, three days before he was shot, he said he was willing to
accept a plan for a reconstructed Louisiana in order to get reconstruction
moving, despite an argument against the plan: "It is also unsatisfactory to
some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would
myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those
who serve our cause as soldiers." So yes, he was willing to let some black
men vote,
Quite the opposite, he was willing to not enfranchise them all in order
to get things moving in Louisiana. He was a politician and he was trying
to put the country back together.
I was talking about his stated preference.
Post by Lewis
But again, you are projecting NOW to then and assuming that as things
are now and as we understand things NOW is who things should always have
been in the past and that what we think now is how people should alwys
have thought.
I projected nothing. You said LIncoln's position had changed. I presented
some factual evidence on how it had changed (from no black people voting
to very intelligent black men and black Union veterans voting) and how it
hadn't.
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
(According to the page where I found this, John Wilkes Booth was in the
audience, and said, "That is the last speech he will make.")
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/last.htm
LIncoln was always in favor of sending African Americans out of the country.
He never stated that in public after the Emancipation Proclamation, but "Four
days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed
on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America’s race problem.
'I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can
get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to
some fertile country…'"
And looking at the last 160 years it is pretty much impossible to argue
that he was wrong, as the US is still astoundingly racist and no one
could say, with a straight face, that the South and North have really
lived in peace since the end of the Civil War.
Ethnic cleansing against all the black people in the country probably would
have reduced the conflicts between North and South, but Lincoln said "it
would be better" in general. I have grave doubts that it would have been
better for the black exiles or the people living in the fertile country they
were sent to. Wikipedia notes, "Of the 4,571 emigrants who arrived in
Liberia from 1820 to 1842, only 1,819 survived until 1843.[3][4]" Not that
Lincoln knew those numbers, but you said it was "pretty much impossible
to argue that he was wrong".
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2010/12/01/lincoln-to-slaves-go-somewhere-else/
Most African Americans were not in favor of that solution.
Most _____ (fill in with anything at all) where not in favor of the
13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments either,
So how did those amendments get ratified? Most of /somebody/ must have
been in favor of them.
Post by Lewis
and only blacks were in favor of
the 13th, though most didn't even know about it.
OK, sorry, most African Americans leaders were not in favor of it.

"Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among Black leaders
and abolitionists, who argued that African Americans were as much natives
of the country as white people, and thus deserved the same rights."

https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
Post by Lewis
Now go read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.
"Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge
of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until
all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of
unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with
the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said
three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the
Lord, are true and righteous altogether.
"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the
right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the
work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who
shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do
all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among
ourselves, and with all nations."
I don't know what you're trying to prove with that. I'm not disputing his
rhetorical skill, or that he had always thought slavery was evil. I am
pointing out that his idea of "a just, and a last peace" seems to have
included such possibilities as limiting the black people who could vote
or banishing all black people.
Post by Lewis
And, just for a second, try to imagine what someone 150+ years in the
future might think about some of your positions now. Chances are very
good (I'd say 100%) that something you consider perfectly usual and
normal right now will be viewed with horror by people in the mid 23rd
century, to say nothing of something that right now you see as a problem
with no good solutions.
And they might be right. Incidentally, there are things I consider usual
and normal but view with horror.

That paragraph of yours seems to be addressed to somebody else. If
you're interested in how I actually view famous people in the past, maybe
we can discuss it.
--
Jerry Friedman
Lewis
2021-01-23 18:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
So how did those amendments get ratified? Most of /somebody/ must have
been in favor of them.
This is outlined in the US Constitution, but it does not involve a
popular vote,
--
Can I tell you the truth? I mean this isn't like TV news, is it?
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-23 19:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Lewis: Most _____ (fill in with anything at all) where not in favor of the
13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments either,
Post by Lewis
So how did those amendments get ratified? Most of /somebody/ must have
been in favor of them.
This is outlined in the US Constitution, but it does not involve a
popular vote,
OK, so most members of Congress and state legislators must have been in
favor of them.
--
Jerry Friedman
Ken Blake
2021-01-23 15:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:26:13 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the
invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea,
Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That
was an anecdote I got verbally.
How else could it be? Mimed? Wordless cartoon? Silent film?
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Dingbat
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
Mamie did not seem to consider it a problem to meet with Bess at the
White House.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-first-lady-bess-truman-greets-soon-to-be-first-news-photo/639337698
American First Lady Bess Truman (left) greets soon-to-be First Lady
Mamie Eisenhower at the White House, Washington DC, Janaury 1952.
(Photo by PhotoQuest/Getty Images)
Getty slipped up with a typo there in the spelling of the date.
I think it's usually a mistake to judge people of the past
Depends. Wilson was a fucking racist piece of shit in any age, and his
being one of the most racist Presidents we've ever had is not excused by
when he was President.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
(even in our lifetimes), by today's standards. Abraham Lincoln isn't
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am
This also ignores the fact that Lincoln's position changed.
I know that the recent¹ wave on neo-fascist conservatism has tried to
paint changing your mind as a weakness (because it is to their
absolutist views) but this was NOT Lincoln's position at the end of the
Civil War. It was not his position when he signed the Emancipation
Proclamation. It was not his position when he got the 13th Amendment
passed.
¹ 40 years or so.
In his last speech, three days before he was shot, he said he was willing to
accept a plan for a reconstructed Louisiana in order to get reconstruction
moving, despite an argument against the plan: "It is also unsatisfactory to
some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would
myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those
who serve our cause as soldiers." So yes, he was willing to let some black
men vote, but not all. He didn't say anything about restricting the franchise to
"the very intelligent" among white people.
(According to the page where I found this, John Wilkes Booth was in the
audience, and said, "That is the last speech he will make.")
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/last.htm
LIncoln was always in favor of sending African Americans out of the country.
Lincoln never even heard of African-Americans.
--
Ken
Quinn C
2021-01-23 19:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Jerry Friedman
LIncoln was always in favor of sending African Americans out of the country.
Lincoln never even heard of African-Americans.
And Caesar had never even heard of an "army".
--
Quinn: I'm not very good at talking to boys.
Zoey: It's easy! It's just like talking to girls, but you got to
use smaller words.
-- Zoey 101, Quinn's Date
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-22 16:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:26:13 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the
invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea,
Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That
was an anecdote I got verbally.
How else could it be? Mimed? Wordless cartoon? Silent film?
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Dingbat
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
Mamie did not seem to consider it a problem to meet with Bess at the
White House.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-first-lady-bess-truman-greets-soon-to-be-first-news-photo/639337698
American First Lady Bess Truman (left) greets soon-to-be First Lady
Mamie Eisenhower at the White House, Washington DC, Janaury 1952.
(Photo by PhotoQuest/Getty Images)
Getty slipped up with a typo there in the spelling of the date.
I think it's usually a mistake to judge people of the past (even in our
lifetimes), by today's standards. Abraham Lincoln isn't usually
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am
not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of
negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with
white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a
physical difference between the white and black races which I believe
will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social
and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen,
to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a
perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.
He also said that his main concern was preserving the Union. If it was
to be all free, sobeit. If it was to be all slave, sobeit. If it was to be half
and half, sobeit. Apparently by January 1, 1863, his position had changed.
Dingbat
2021-01-22 07:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:26:13 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the
invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea,
Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That
was an anecdote I got verbally.
How else could it be? Mimed? Wordless cartoon? Silent film?
In print. I didn't see it in print.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Dingbat
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
Mamie did not seem to consider it a problem to meet with Bess at the
White House.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-first-lady-bess-truman-greets-soon-to-be-first-news-photo/639337698
American First Lady Bess Truman (left) greets soon-to-be First Lady
Mamie Eisenhower at the White House, Washington DC, Janaury 1952.
(Photo by PhotoQuest/Getty Images)
Getty slipped up with a typo there in the spelling of the date.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-01-22 12:15:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:55:33 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:26:13 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the
invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea,
Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That
was an anecdote I got verbally.
How else could it be? Mimed? Wordless cartoon? Silent film?
In print. I didn't see it in print.
I think this is about the difference between "verbally" and "orally".

"verbally" includes written as well as spoken words.

"orally" refers to spoken words only.
Post by Dingbat
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Dingbat
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
Mamie did not seem to consider it a problem to meet with Bess at the
White House.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-first-lady-bess-truman-greets-soon-to-be-first-news-photo/639337698
American First Lady Bess Truman (left) greets soon-to-be First Lady
Mamie Eisenhower at the White House, Washington DC, Janaury 1952.
(Photo by PhotoQuest/Getty Images)
Getty slipped up with a typo there in the spelling of the date.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Quinn C
2021-01-22 15:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:55:33 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:26:13 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the
invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea,
Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That
was an anecdote I got verbally.
How else could it be? Mimed? Wordless cartoon? Silent film?
In print. I didn't see it in print.
I think this is about the difference between "verbally" and "orally".
"verbally" includes written as well as spoken words.
"orally" refers to spoken words only.
Does it, though? I think the use of "verbally" to mean spoken, and more
specifically, spoken live (not through a medium like tape or film) is
quite common, and that's how I naturally understood it above.

Merriam-Webster:

1a in words : through or by the use of words
...
1b in spoken rather than written words
// In the centuries before the Magna Carta, agreements were
made and kept verbally.
— Janeen R. Adil
--
... one has to question science with those economy people
[...] thinking is often blocked by an ideological super-
structure [...] It's in many aspects more a religion than
a science. -- Heiner Flassbeck, famous economist
Ken Blake
2021-01-22 15:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:55:33 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:26:13 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the
invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea,
Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That
was an anecdote I got verbally.
How else could it be? Mimed? Wordless cartoon? Silent film?
In print. I didn't see it in print.
I think this is about the difference between "verbally" and "orally".
"verbally" includes written as well as spoken words.
"orally" refers to spoken words only.
Does it, though? I think the use of "verbally" to mean spoken, and more
specifically, spoken live (not through a medium like tape or film) is
quite common, and that's how I naturally understood it above.
I agree. Although it can be used to mean either spoken or written, to
most people, it's usually understood to mean only only spoken.
Post by Quinn C
1a in words : through or by the use of words
...
1b in spoken rather than written words
// In the centuries before the Magna Carta, agreements were
made and kept verbally.
— Janeen R. Adil
--
Ken
Lewis
2021-01-22 17:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:55:33 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:26:13 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the
invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea,
Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That
was an anecdote I got verbally.
How else could it be? Mimed? Wordless cartoon? Silent film?
In print. I didn't see it in print.
I think this is about the difference between "verbally" and "orally".
"verbally" includes written as well as spoken words.
"orally" refers to spoken words only.
Does it, though? I think the use of "verbally" to mean spoken, and more
specifically, spoken live (not through a medium like tape or film) is
quite common, and that's how I naturally understood it above.
1a in words : through or by the use of words
And that definition shows you are wrong in your understanding. Verbally
means using words, and that CAN mean orally.
Post by Quinn C
...
1b in spoken rather than written words
And why do you think that 1b trumps 1a?
--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, but how will we get the Spice Girls into the
paella?"
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-22 17:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
[ … ]
Post by Quinn C
Does it, though? I think the use of "verbally" to mean spoken, and more
specifically, spoken live (not through a medium like tape or film) is
quite common, and that's how I naturally understood it above.
It's not that I didn't understand Dingbat, but only that in a news
group devoted to English usage he should be less sloppy in his usage.
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
1a in words : through or by the use of words
And that definition shows you are wrong in your understanding. Verbally
means using words, and that CAN mean orally.
Post by Quinn C
...
1b in spoken rather than written words
And why do you think that 1b trumps 1a?
Now that a new era has dawned it's probably best to avoid offensive
words like "tr*mps". A problem for bridge players, I suppose.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Dingbat
2021-01-23 03:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:55:33 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 21:26:13 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the
invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea,
Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That
was an anecdote I got verbally.
How else could it be? Mimed? Wordless cartoon? Silent film?
In print. I didn't see it in print.
I think this is about the difference between "verbally" and "orally".
"verbally" includes written as well as spoken words.
"orally" refers to spoken words only.
Ah. I got it by email, the verbiage being in a conversational, or gossipy, style rather than a quote of something in print.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Dingbat
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Dingbat
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
Mamie did not seem to consider it a problem to meet with Bess at the
White House.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-first-lady-bess-truman-greets-soon-to-be-first-news-photo/639337698
American First Lady Bess Truman (left) greets soon-to-be First Lady
Mamie Eisenhower at the White House, Washington DC, Janaury 1952.
(Photo by PhotoQuest/Getty Images)
Getty slipped up with a typo there in the spelling of the date.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-22 16:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea, Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That was an anecdote I got verbally.
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
It was Truman who integrated the Armed Forces. During WWII and earlier,
there were separate units for white and colored soldiers. That went back
at least to the Civil War, when a black unit from Boston covered itself in
*Glory* (as the movie was called, with Matthew Broderick oddly cast as
their leader), and Augustus St.-Gaudens created the first memorial that
depicted actual black people in a commemorative sculpture (not the
participants, who presumably had never been photographed, but real
models, not idealized forms).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gould_Shaw_Memorial
Dingbat
2021-01-23 01:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea, Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That was an anecdote I got verbally.
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
Notwithstanding Tony's correction, there does seem to be an article on such a subject:
<https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/21/opinion/tea-and-transition.html>
Tony Cooper
2021-01-23 02:32:39 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:45:15 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea, Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That was an anecdote I got verbally.
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
<https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/21/opinion/tea-and-transition.html>
My comment was about Bess meeting Mamie at the White House, and I
linked to a photo of Bess and Mamie at the White House.

This article is about Ike and Harry.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Dingbat
2021-01-23 09:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:45:15 -0800 (PST), Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ken Blake
I just this on a web page, from Fox News;
"President-elect Joe Biden's daughter Ashley Biden said Tuesday it is
"unfortunate" that first lady Melania Trump had not initiated a White
House tour for her mother, incoming first lady Jill Biden."
What a terrible sentence! I had to read it several times before I
finally realized that Fox News didn't think Jill Biden was Melania
Trump's mother
FWIW, when the outgoing 1st Lady did invite the incoming 1st Lady, the invitation hasn't always been accepted.
When Bess and Harry Truman invited Mamie and Dwight Eisenhower to tea, Mamie refused the invitation,
supposedly by virtue of considering one or both the hosts racist. That was an anecdote I got verbally.
https://apnews.com/article/ab0d537a112c3554373a97dff54c0e60
<https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/21/opinion/tea-and-transition.html>
My comment was about Bess meeting Mamie at the White House, and I
linked to a photo of Bess and Mamie at the White House.
This article is about Ike and Harry.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
My interlocutor's rumor could have originated from a reported story. Norman Rockwell made a painting of gossip morphing a story into an ever changing rumor.
Loading...