Is there a term for a name that was not in use at the time? For
instance World War I, the Angevin Empire, Old English, the Jurassic
Period, etc., none of which were used at the relevant time.
Is there a term for a name that was not in use at the time? For
instance World War I, the Angevin Empire, Old English, the Jurassic
Period, etc., none of which were used at the relevant time.
Similarly, nobody knew how long the Hundred Years War, the Thirty
Years War, or the Seven Years War would be until they were over.
Indeed, the Seven Years War is still known as the French and Indian
War in the US.
I have heard the term "retroynm" used for this. But more often that
term is used to specify something that used to be the default. For
instance silent movie, sailing ship, reel lawnmower, accoustic guitar,
hot coffee.
So which is the correct term for which? Thanks.
Is there a term for a name that was not in use at the time? For
instance World War I, the Angevin Empire, Old English, the Jurassic
Period, etc., none of which were used at the relevant time.
Similarly, nobody knew how long the Hundred Years War, the Thirty
Years War, or the Seven Years War would be until they were over.
Indeed, the Seven Years War is still known as the French and Indian
War in the US.
I have heard the term "retroynm" used for this. But more often that
term is used to specify something that used to be the default. For
instance silent movie, sailing ship, reel lawnmower, accoustic guitar,
hot coffee.
So which is the correct term for which? Thanks.
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
Is there a term for a name that was not in use at the time? For
instance World War I, the Angevin Empire, Old English, the Jurassic
Period, etc., none of which were used at the relevant time.
Similarly, nobody knew how long the Hundred Years War, the Thirty
Years War, or the Seven Years War would be until they were over.
Indeed, the Seven Years War is still known as the French and Indian
War in the US.
... the Jurassic Period, etc., none of which were used at the
relevant time.
On 7/18/2026 1:11 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Is there a term for a name that was not in use at the time?-a For
instance World War I, the Angevin Empire, Old English, the Jurassic
Period, etc., none of which were used at the relevant time.
Similarly, nobody knew how long the Hundred Years War, the Thirty
Years War, or the Seven Years War would be until they were over.
Indeed, the Seven Years War is still known as the French and Indian
War in the US.
I have heard the term "retroynm" used for this.-a But more often that
term is used to specify something that used to be the default.-a For
instance silent movie, sailing ship, reel lawnmower, accoustic guitar,
hot coffee.
So which is the correct term for which?-a Thanks.
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history of
"The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World War I,
or, maybe The First World War.
I, unfortunately, don't know the word you're looking for other than anachronism.
Also Byzantine Empire ...
... Middle Ages, Antiquity.
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II. How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
ObSF: _Last and First Men_, published in 1931, mentioned "The Great--
War," but nothing like World War II.
Similarly, Queen Elizabeth I, who died in 1603, didn't get her regnal
number until 1952 when Queen Elizabeth II came along. Before that,
she was just Queen Elizabeth.
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history of
"The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World War I,
or, maybe The First World War.
On 7/18/2026 1:11 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Is there a term for a name that was not in use at the time? For
instance World War I, the Angevin Empire, Old English, the Jurassic
Period, etc., none of which were used at the relevant time.
Similarly, nobody knew how long the Hundred Years War, the Thirty
Years War, or the Seven Years War would be until they were over.
Indeed, the Seven Years War is still known as the French and Indian
War in the US.
I have heard the term "retroynm" used for this. But more often that
term is used to specify something that used to be the default. For instance silent movie, sailing ship, reel lawnmower, accoustic guitar,
hot coffee.
So which is the correct term for which? Thanks.
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history of
"The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World War I,
or, maybe The First World War.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 06:10:38 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
Also Byzantine Empire ...
You know, they thought of themselves as Romans, even though they spoke
Greek.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 06:10:38 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
Also Byzantine Empire ...
You know, they thought of themselves as Romans, even though they spoke
Greek.
... Middle Ages, Antiquity.
When did the term rCLDark AgesrCY start to be used?
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II. How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 06:10:38 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
Also Byzantine Empire ...
You know, they thought of themselves as Romans, even though they spoke
Greek.
Eh, Julius Caesar spoke Greek too,
when among friends.
On 19/07/2026 03:18, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II.-a How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
Once was accepted that the 1914-1918 war was a *world* war, in contrast
to all previous wars, then it seems reasonable to start calling it the
First World War. The stress, though, would properly be on 'World'.
Later, when the Second World War arrives, stress shifts to 'First'.
On 19/07/2026 11:16, Phil wrote:
On 19/07/2026 03:18, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II.-a How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
Once was accepted that the 1914-1918 war was a *world* war, in contrast
to all previous wars, then it seems reasonable to start calling it the
First World War. The stress, though, would properly be on 'World'.
Later, when the Second World War arrives, stress shifts to 'First'.
Though that may sound logical, the consensus is that the designation
"World War I" was officially adopted /after/ World War II, as historians needed to distinguish it from the subsequent global conflict. (I have
read this somewhere, but you local AI search will confirm it.)
On 19/07/2026 11:16, Phil wrote:
On 19/07/2026 03:18, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II.-a How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
Once was accepted that the 1914-1918 war was a *world* war, in contrast
to all previous wars, then it seems reasonable to start calling it the
First World War. The stress, though, would properly be on 'World'.
Later, when the Second World War arrives, stress shifts to 'First'.
Though that may sound logical, the consensus is that the designation
"World War I" was officially adopted /after/ World War II, as historians needed to distinguish it from the subsequent global conflict. (I have
read this somewhere, but you local AI search will confirm it.)
On 19/07/2026 03:18, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II.-a How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
Once was accepted that the 1914-1918 war was a *world* war, in contrast
to all previous wars, then it seems reasonable to start calling it the
First World War. The stress, though, would properly be on 'World'.
Later, when the Second World War arrives, stress shifts to 'First'.
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II. How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
Somewhat related: 'World War III' is already a well-recognised concept
even though it hasn't happened (yet). Makes me wonder when the term
'World War II' first started to be used. Did FDR ever accuse anyone of "gambling with World War II"?
Somewhat related: 'World War III' is already a well-recognised concept
even though it hasn't happened (yet). Makes me wonder when the term
'World War II' first started to be used. Did FDR ever accuse anyone of "gambling with World War II"?
On 19/07/2026 03:18, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II. How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
Once was accepted that the 1914-1918 war was a *world* war, in contrast
to all previous wars, then it seems reasonable to start calling it the
First World War. The stress, though, would properly be on 'World'.
Later, when the Second World War arrives, stress shifts to 'First'.
--
ObSF: _Last and First Men_, published in 1931, mentioned "The Great
War," but nothing like World War II.
Similarly, Queen Elizabeth I, who died in 1603, didn't get her regnal
number until 1952 when Queen Elizabeth II came along. Before that,
she was just Queen Elizabeth.
Somewhat related: 'World War III' is already a well-recognised
concept even though it hasn't happened (yet).
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 06:10:38 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
Also Byzantine Empire ...
You know, they thought of themselves as Romans, even though they spoke
Greek.
... Middle Ages, Antiquity.
When did the term rCLDark AgesrCY start to be used?
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 10:16:24 +0100, Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid>
wrote:
On 19/07/2026 03:18, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II. How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
Once was accepted that the 1914-1918 war was a *world* war, in contrast
to all previous wars, then it seems reasonable to start calling it the
First World War. The stress, though, would properly be on 'World'.
Later, when the Second World War arrives, stress shifts to 'First'.
I suspect that it was known simply as "the Great War" or "the War"
until the second one came along, after which it began to be called the
first.
Does anyone know when the "Second World War" was first called that? Presumably when enough local conflicts had amalgamated to give a
single name to the whole shebang.
I assume it began in Asia when Japan invaded China, in Africa when
Italy invaded Ethiopia, in Europe when Germany invaded Poland, and in
America when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour.
People have been talking about the third one by anticipation, so I
suspect that it will be called that from the start.
ObSF: _Last and First Men_, published in 1931, mentioned "The Great
War," but nothing like World War II.
Similarly, Queen Elizabeth I, who died in 1603, didn't get her regnal
number until 1952 when Queen Elizabeth II came along. Before that,
she was just Queen Elizabeth.
It's noteworthy that the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were of completely different design. And that the Little Boy design had never
been tested. But worked perfectly anyway. Impressive.
I suspect that it was known simply as "the Great War" or "the War"
until the second one came along, after which it began to be called the
first.
Indeed, you remind me that for me (and doubtless many in this forum),
WWII was for many years just 'The War', because that's how my parents
talked about it. They had, after all, been immersed in it for six years
not so very long before I was born.
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II. How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
ObSF: _Last and First Men_, published in 1931, mentioned "The Great
War," but nothing like World War II.
Similarly, Queen Elizabeth I, who died in 1603, didn't get her regnal
number until 1952 when Queen Elizabeth II came along. Before that,
she was just Queen Elizabeth.
In article <113h0ia$3tq7c$1@dont-email.me>,
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history of
"The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World War I,
or, maybe The First World War.
"The First World War 1914-1918" by Charles a Court Repington, 1920.
https://archive.org/details/firstworldwar01repi/page/n7/mode/2up
-- Richard
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 10:16:24 +0100, Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid>
wrote:
On 19/07/2026 03:18, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II. How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
Once was accepted that the 1914-1918 war was a *world* war, in contrast
to all previous wars, then it seems reasonable to start calling it the >>First World War. The stress, though, would properly be on 'World'.
Later, when the Second World War arrives, stress shifts to 'First'.
I suspect that it was known simply as "the Great War" or "the War"
until the second one came along, after which it began to be called the
first.
Does anyone know when the "Second World War" was first called that? Presumably when enough local conflicts had amalgamated to give a
single name to the whole shebang.
I assume it began in Asia when Japan invaded China, in Africa when
Italy invaded Ethiopia, in Europe when Germany invaded Poland, and in
America when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour.
People have been talking about the third one by anticipation, so I
suspect that it will be called that from the start.
In article <113h0ia$3tq7c$1@dont-email.me>,
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history of
"The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World War I, >>or, maybe The First World War.
"The First World War 1914-1918" by Charles a Court Repington, 1920. >https://archive.org/details/firstworldwar01repi/page/n7/mode/2up
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:11:52 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
... the Jurassic Period, etc., none of which were used at the
relevant time.
How do we know what term the dinosaurs used? Did anyone ask them?
Does anyone know when the "Second World War" was first called that?[...]
People have been talking about the third one by anticipation, so I
suspect that it will be called that from the start.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 08:11:26 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 06:10:38 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
Also Byzantine Empire ...
You know, they thought of themselves as Romans, even though they spoke >Greek.
Exactly. Even when the Roman Empire still included the Italian city of
Rome, large parts of it mainly spoke Greek.
... Middle Ages, Antiquity.
When did the term "Dark Ages" start to be used?
I suspect when historians who had invented the Middle Ages discovered
that some parts of their favourite period had fewer written sources
than others -- roughly 500-800.
J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 06:10:38 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
Also Byzantine Empire ...
You know, they thought of themselves as Romans, even though they spoke
Greek.
Eh, Julius Caesar spoke Greek too,
when among friends.
If Shakespeare was correct, he spoke it when among enemies too.
Verily, in article <113hc56$k7f$1@reader1.panix.com>, did
kfl@KeithLynch.net deliver unto us this message:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II. How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
They did, actually. There had never been a world war before, at least
not in memory, and there is writing from the time referring to it as the >first world war. I've even seen it written as "first World War," for
those who pay attention to capitalization.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:
Also Byzantine Empire ...
You know, they thought of themselves as Romans, even though they spoke
Greek.
Eh, Julius Caesar spoke Greek too,
when among friends.
In article <113hlig$3n2n$3@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:11:52 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
... the Jurassic Period, etc., none of which were used at the
relevant time.
How do we know what term the dinosaurs used? Did anyone ask them?
No need to ask, it's set in stone!
J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:
Also Byzantine Empire ...
You know, they thought of themselves as Romans, even though they spoke
Greek.
Eh, Julius Caesar spoke Greek too,
when among friends.
Most of the charred scrolls in Herculaneum that are now being read by high-tech means are written in Greek, not Latin, which is surprising
to me.
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Most of the charred scrolls in Herculaneum that are now being read by
high-tech means are written in Greek, not Latin, which is surprising
to me.
Not surprising at all. This was Magna Graecia.
All of Southern Italy spoke Greek natively.
The Roman conquest of the South didn't change that.
Neapolis, originally Paleopolis, is an early Greek colony.
As a city it may well be older than Rome.
Apart from that, most educated Romans spoke Latin and Greek.
The hired (or bought!) Greek house tutors for their children.
Julius also had no problems chatting up Cleopatra.
(or the other way round)
They both spoke Greek.
The humanists who invented the Renaissance did it.
(Petrarca, ~ 1350)
You can hardly have a renaissance
without having a dark age to precede it,
Apart from that, most educated Romans spoke Latin and Greek. The
hired (or bought!) Greek house tutors for their children.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 04:58:56 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:11:52 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
... the Jurassic Period, etc., none of which were used at the
relevant time.
How do we know what term the dinosaurs used? Did anyone ask them?
No need to ask, it's set in stone!
He referred to it as World War I before anyone else did.
My maternal grandfather, during the 1930s, refused to trade in old
cars on the grounds that they'd be sold, in turn, as scrap metal to
the Japanese who would shoot them back at us.
Archimedes lived in Sicily.
I take "World War III" to mean an ultimately destructive war. If it
ever applied, few to none would be left alive to call it anything.
"World War III has been happening for years now. EveryonerCOs just too
busy watching the commercials to notice."
(Jerry Cornelius --- from _The Final Programme_, I think.)
The First World War seems to me to have been a pointless conflict.
It was mainly about established empires (Britain and France) trying
to ensure that upstart countries (Germany) could not create their
own empires in competition.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
The First World War seems to me to have been a pointless conflict.
It was mainly about established empires (Britain and France) trying
to ensure that upstart countries (Germany) could not create their
own empires in competition.
It was a fight between Queen Victoria's grandchildren. The Russian
Tsar, the German Kaiser, and Britain's King George V were among her
many grandchildren.
Maybe we should be thankful that she didn't have lots more
grandchildren.
[Hal Heydt] My maternal grandfather, during the 1930s, refused to
trade in old cars on the grounds that they'd be sold, in turn, as
scrap metal to the Japanese who would shoot them back at us.
He was right... But how many people thought about it that way?
(He was, by the way, born in Denmark in 1879 and came to the US in
1906. So he had a more European outlook on the world than many--most?--Americans.)
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 23:32:36 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Apart from that, most educated Romans spoke Latin and Greek. The
hired (or bought!) Greek house tutors for their children.
That part is not surprising to me. The Romans had a great deal of
respect for the Greeks and their tradition of learning.
But for the entire Roman empire to run mostly on Greek ... no.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 19:59:13 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
My maternal grandfather, during the 1930s, refused to trade in old
cars on the grounds that they'd be sold, in turn, as scrap metal to
the Japanese who would shoot them back at us.
The Japanese were pretty militaristic right through the 1930s, if not
before. Remember, they had given the Russians a thrashing in 1905,
severely discomfiting many crowned heads throughout Europe, that some
upstart non-whites could possibly manage such a thing.
Just this Sunday, Keith F. Lynch puzzled about:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
The First World War seems to me to have been a pointless conflict.
It was mainly about established empires (Britain and France) trying
to ensure that upstart countries (Germany) could not create their
own empires in competition.
It was a fight between Queen Victoria's grandchildren. The Russian
Tsar, the German Kaiser, and Britain's King George V were among her
many grandchildren.
Maybe we should be thankful that she didn't have lots more
grandchildren.
There's a book called _The Cousin War_ somewhere in my stacks.
"The First World War 1914-1918" by Charles a Court Repington, 1920. >>https://archive.org/details/firstworldwar01repi/page/n7/mode/2up
But that's not fair because title capitalization confuses "the first World >War" (perfectly sensible) with "The First World War" (nonsense at that >time).
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 23:32:36 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Apart from that, most educated Romans spoke Latin and Greek. The
hired (or bought!) Greek house tutors for their children.
That part is not surprising to me. The Romans had a great deal of
respect for the Greeks and their tradition of learning.
But for the entire Roman empire to run mostly on Greek ... no.
Merely half of it,
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
But for the entire Roman empire to run mostly on Greek ... no.
Merely half of it,
And the half that survived a thousand years longer.
If one somehow calculated the "product" of area and time, I wonder
which half would be the larger.
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
But for the entire Roman empire to run mostly on Greek ... no.
Merely half of it,
And the half that survived a thousand years longer.
If one somehow calculated the "product" of area and time, I wonder
which half would be the larger.
Good question. But I've read that, due to several plagues and
famines, by 1453 Constanople had shrunk into a small town. If so,
the wonder is that the Turks took so long to take over.
I'm reminded of the fact that I once sorted my history books by when
they were set. One was a book on America history. When exactly was
American history? Surpringingly, I worked out that on average, it
was during the Reagan administration. In other words, the median English-speaking person in what became the United states lived in
the 1980s. This is true whether or not I include colonial times.
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
Just this Sunday, Keith F. Lynch puzzled about:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
The First World War seems to me to have been a pointless conflict.
It was mainly about established empires (Britain and France) trying
to ensure that upstart countries (Germany) could not create their
own empires in competition.
It was a fight between Queen Victoria's grandchildren. The Russian
Tsar, the German Kaiser, and Britain's King George V were among her
many grandchildren.
Maybe we should be thankful that she didn't have lots more
grandchildren.
There's a book called _The Cousin War_ somewhere in my stacks.
You are sure it isn't about the Wars of the Roses?
Jan
J. J. Lodder speculated:
Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
Just this Sunday, Keith F. Lynch puzzled about:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
The First World War seems to me to have been a pointless conflict.
It was mainly about established empires (Britain and France) trying
to ensure that upstart countries (Germany) could not create their
own empires in competition.
It was a fight between Queen Victoria's grandchildren.-a The Russian
Tsar, the German Kaiser, and Britain's King George V were among her
many grandchildren.
Maybe we should be thankful that she didn't have lots more
grandchildren.
There's a book called _The Cousin War_ somewhere in my stacks.
You are sure it isn't about the Wars of the Roses?
Jan
Pretty sure.
-d
The "Cousins' War" series by Philippa Gregory is about the War of the Roses.
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Good question. But I've read that, due to several plagues and
famines, by 1453 Constantinople had shrunk into a small town.
If so, the wonder is that the Turks took so long to take over.
Theodosian Walls. The Ottomans had to wait for cannon before they
could take it.
I'm reminded of the fact that I once sorted my history books by
when they were set. One was a book on America history. When
exactly was American history? Surprisingly, I worked out that on
average, it was during the Reagan administration. In other words,
the median English-speaking person in what became the United states
lived in the 1980s. This is true whether or not I include colonial
times.
I pretty much sort my history books that way--how else would one do
it? (Well, I sort geographically, then chronologically.) I put the
overviews at the start of the period they cover.
On 7/18/2026 7:18 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II. How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
ObSF: _Last and First Men_, published in 1931, mentioned "The Great
War," but nothing like World War II.
Similarly, Queen Elizabeth I, who died in 1603, didn't get her regnal
number until 1952 when Queen Elizabeth II came along. Before that,
she was just Queen Elizabeth.
That was why it was worthy of note. He referred to it as World War I
before anyone else did.
In article <113i6g7$1gq35$1@artemis.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <113h0ia$3tq7c$1@dont-email.me>,
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history of >>>"The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World War I, >>>or, maybe The First World War.
"The First World War 1914-1918" by Charles a Court Repington, 1920. >>https://archive.org/details/firstworldwar01repi/page/n7/mode/2up
But that's not fair because title capitalization confuses "the first World >War" (perfectly sensible) with "The First World War" (nonsense at that >time).
Similarly, according to DDG, the "first truly national bank in the United >States was the Bank of North America, which was chartered in 1781" yet
"the First Bank of the United States" was not established until 1791.
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
I suspect when historians who had invented the Middle Ages discovered
that some parts of their favourite period had fewer written sources
than others -- roughly 500-800.
The humanists who invented the Renaissance did it.
(Petrarca, ~ 1350)
You can hardly have a renaissance
without having a dark age to precede it,
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 11:52:24 -0700, Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com>
wrote:
On 7/18/2026 7:18 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World
War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II. How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
ObSF: _Last and First Men_, published in 1931, mentioned "The Great
War," but nothing like World War II.
Similarly, Queen Elizabeth I, who died in 1603, didn't get her regnal
number until 1952 when Queen Elizabeth II came along. Before that,
she was just Queen Elizabeth.
That was why it was worthy of note. He referred to it as World War I
before anyone else did.
But did he really?
Did he say "World War I"?
Or did he say "First World War"?
Or did he say "first world war"?
Today is the 56th anniversary of the first moon landing.
Putting it like that says nothing about a second or third moon
landing. It merely indicates that there hasn't been one like it
before.
"Moon Landing 1", however, expresses order in a series.
It was a fight between Queen Victoria's grandchildren. The Russian
Tsar, the German Kaiser, and Britain's King George V were among her
many grandchildren.
Similarly, we know there was a major volcanic eruption in 536, which
greatly harmed Constantinople among other places, but we have no idea
where it was. Possibly somewhere in North America, but nobody there
was keeping track at the time. Or possibly in Iceland, but no human
being had yet set foot on that island.
Today is the 56th anniversary of the first moon landing.
Putting it like that says nothing about a second or third moon
landing. It merely indicates that there hasn't been one like it
before.
In the film The King's Man, Tom Hollander plays all three
characters, George, Wilhelm and Nicholas.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 11:52:24 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
He referred to it as World War I before anyone else did.
I think the signs of a potential future conflict were likely not that
hard to spot, by those not blinkered by blind loyalty to their
respective empires.
The First World War seems to me to have been a pointless conflict.
was mainly about established empires (Britain and France) trying to
ensure that upstart countries (Germany) could not create their own
empires in competition. Each one called up loyal citizens from all
over home and colonies to fight, and they came, without questioning
what the fight was about -- rCLMy country, right or wrongrCY was the
standard mindset back then.
The ANZAC countries (of which I live in one) are fond of commemorating
the disastrous Gallipoli campaign. This is where they attacked a
country (the Ottoman Empire at the time) which had never shown any
hostility towards them, and who gave them a severe thrashing. To this
day, the Turks tolerate their turning up every year, and mostly I
think tactfully refrain from reminding them who won that battle.
The end of that world war left a mess, and the following world war was
an attempt to clean up that mess. How successful was it? You be the
judge.
The Japanese could not understand why they couldn't become member
of the club of colonising imperialist industrial powers.
When they did just what the older colonial powers had been routinely
doing for a long time there were outcries about their heinous crimes,
In article <113j9kl$q7v$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Pierre Jelenc <rcpj@panix.com> wrote:
"The First World War 1914-1918" by Charles a Court Repington, 1920. >>>https://archive.org/details/firstworldwar01repi/page/n7/mode/2up
But that's not fair because title capitalization confuses "the first World >>War" (perfectly sensible) with "The First World War" (nonsense at that >>time).
Page 1:
... I cannot better preface this account of my personal experiences
in the First World War than by ...
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Good question. But I've read that, due to several plagues and
famines, by 1453 Constantinople had shrunk into a small town.
If so, the wonder is that the Turks took so long to take over.
Theodosian Walls. The Ottomans had to wait for cannon before they
could take it.
Then how did the Fourth Crusade successfully sack that city in 1204?
I'd think that trebuchets could easily deal with those walls.
I'm reminded of the fact that I once sorted my history books by
when they were set. One was a book on America history. When
exactly was American history? Surprisingly, I worked out that on
average, it was during the Reagan administration. In other words,
the median English-speaking person in what became the United states
lived in the 1980s. This is true whether or not I include colonial
times.
I pretty much sort my history books that way--how else would one do
it? (Well, I sort geographically, then chronologically.) I put the
overviews at the start of the period they cover.
So when did the median Roman subject live? We may not have enough information to answer that. And of course it depends on whether or
not you include people whose native language wasn't Latin.
A more interesting question is when did the median American live, if
you include Native Americans. The continent has been inhabited for
a rather long time. And for much of that time it may have been more
heavily inhabited than it was in the 17th century, since by then the
natives had already been ravaged by Old World plagues to which they
had little resistance. But, again, we have little information.
Similarly, we know there was a major volcanic eruption in 536, which
greatly harmed Constantinople among other places, but we have no idea
where it was. Possibly somewhere in North America, but nobody there
was keeping track at the time. Or possibly in Iceland, but no human
being had yet set foot on that island.
It was Apollo 1 before there was an Apollo 2. (in fact, there was
never an Apollo 2.)
George and Nicholas did look so much alike that they sometimes
defliberately confused their aides by swapping clothes.
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
The "Cousins' War" series by Philippa Gregory is about the War of
the Roses.
I had to double check whether this was the same Philippa who was
responsible for discovering the remains of Richard III. She wasn't.
That's Philippa Langley. Interesting coincidence, though.
I pretty much sort my history books that way--how else would one do it?
For instance we may be living through the end of "The American
Experiment", but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people in 1863
thought that, too.
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:20:41 -0400, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
I pretty much sort my history books that way--how else would one do
it?
... you sort your history books ... ?
On 21/07/26 09:01, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:20:41 -0400, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
I pretty much sort my history books that way--how else would one do
it?
... you sort your history books ... ?
I have three bookcases of fiction, and one bookcase for non-fiction. The fiction is easy to keep sorted; it's alphabetical by author. My
non-fiction is a mess, though. I try to keep it sorted by subject/field,
but there are too many ambiguous cases.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 23:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
The end of that world war left a mess, and the following world war was
an attempt to clean up that mess. How successful was it? You be the
judge.
I think that very few people at the end of WW I were concerned
about how it set the stage for fighting for access to oil -- both
Germany and Japan were cut off from fuel before the end of WW II.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 23:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 11:52:24 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
He referred to it as World War I before anyone else did.
I think the signs of a potential future conflict were likely not that
hard to spot, by those not blinkered by blind loyalty to their
respective empires.
The First World War seems to me to have been a pointless conflict.
Studies after the fact concluded that the start of WW I was
largely an accident -- countries had plans like, "We mobilize if
we see THIS", but none had plans for calling off a mobilization.
And. Everyone was guessing at the motives of their rivals.
(That's not to say that no war would have happened, given
the rivalries, etc.; but the start could have been different.)
The studies led to the creation of the Hot Line, a connection
(teletype) between Moscow and DC, to allow communication.
The Hot Line probably prevented the escalation of hostillities,
after the US got upset at Russian missiles going nto Cuba and
began a naval blockade.
Discussion on the Hot Line revealed --
The US had not noticed how 'offensive' the Soviet Union had
considered it to be, when the US had put Jupiter missiles in Turkey,
shortly before (a very short distance from the USSR). The deal:
the US agreed to remove those weapons and the USSR would not
leave missiles in Cuba.
Remember Monday, when Rich Ulrich asked plaintively:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 23:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D-|Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
The end of that world war left a mess, and the following world war was
an attempt to clean up that mess. How successful was it? You be the
judge.
I think that very few people at the end of WW I were concerned
about how it set the stage for fighting for access to oil -- both
Germany and Japan were cut off from fuel before the end of WW II.
Peter Frankopan, in _The Silk Roads_, noted that it was well into WWI
before Churchill (Admiralty then) understood that MidEast oil was
important to his fleet.
Before the war, there was much concern over Russia threatening an >encroachment (or more) of the Imperial Jewel, India.
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:50:46 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
For instance we may be living through the end of "The American
Experiment", but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people in 1863
thought that, too.
Probably it was more the people in the South back then, whereas nowadays
the feeling would be a bit more widespread ...
On 7/19/26 3:54 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The humanists who invented the Renaissance did it.
(Petrarca, ~ 1350)
You can hardly have a renaissance without having a dark age to precede
it,
1350 was a good century before the earliest dates ascribed to the Renaissance.
On 7/20/26 10:33 AM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Similarly, we know there was a major volcanic eruption in 536, which greatly harmed Constantinople among other places, but we have no idea
where it was. Possibly somewhere in North America, but nobody there
was keeping track at the time. Or possibly in Iceland, but no human
being had yet set foot on that island.
It's now believed there were two big eruptions within four or five years
of each other. I don't know if it could have been the same volcano going
off twice.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 21:54:29 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
I suspect when historians who had invented the Middle Ages discovered
that some parts of their favourite period had fewer written sources
than others -- roughly 500-800.
The humanists who invented the Renaissance did it.
(Petrarca, ~ 1350)
You can hardly have a renaissance
without having a dark age to precede it,
Can you give the context in which he used it?
[...]
Discussion on the Hot Line revealed --
The US had not noticed how 'offensive' the Soviet Union had
considered it to be, when the US had put Jupiter missiles in Turkey,
shortly before (a very short distance from the USSR). The deal:
the US agreed to remove those weapons and the USSR would not
leave missiles in Cuba.
But that generation passed, and the next generation either did not
notice, or if it noticved, did not care how 'offensive' the Russian Federation would consider it to be if Nato put missiles in Ukraine,
thereby provoking the Russian Federation to invade Ukraine,
and demand
that the fighting continue until the Russian Federation agrees to have
Nato troops in Ukraine, offensive or not.
Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
In the film The King's Man, Tom Hollander plays all three
characters, George, Wilhelm and Nicholas.
George and Nicholas did look so much alike that they sometimes
defliberately confused their aides by swapping clothes.
So it's strange that George refused to rescue Nicholas from the
Bolsheviks.
Remember Monday, when Rich Ulrich asked plaintively:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 23:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
The end of that world war left a mess, and the following world war was
an attempt to clean up that mess. How successful was it? You be the
judge.
I think that very few people at the end of WW I were concerned
about how it set the stage for fighting for access to oil -- both
Germany and Japan were cut off from fuel before the end of WW II.
Peter Frankopan, in _The Silk Roads_, noted that it was well into WWI
before Churchill (Admiralty then) understood that MidEast oil was
important to his fleet.
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
In the film The King's Man, Tom Hollander plays all three
characters, George, Wilhelm and Nicholas.
George and Nicholas did look so much alike that they sometimes defliberately confused their aides by swapping clothes.
So it's strange that George refused to rescue Nicholas from the
Bolsheviks.
How should he have done that?
Send the royal navy to the other side of Jutland?
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
So it's strange that George refused to rescue Nicholas from the
Bolsheviks.
How should he have done that?
Send the royal navy to the other side of Jutland?
J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
So it's strange that George refused to rescue Nicholas from the
Bolsheviks.
How should he have done that?
Send the royal navy to the other side of Jutland?
Given him and his family permission to move to the UK. The Bolsheviks
were perfectly willing to let them go.
He may not have realized that the Communists were murderous thugs,
unwilling to let them continue living in Russia.
... thereby provoking the Russian Federation to invade Ukraine ...
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:02:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:50:46 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
For instance we may be living through the end of "The American
Experiment", but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people in
1863 thought that, too.
Probably it was more the people in the South back then, whereas
nowadays the feeling would be a bit more widespread ...
Thanks to American journalism...
Petrarca inverted the up to then usual imagery: Classical antiquity
as 'dark' because lacking the light of christianity into light,
because of knowledge and reson that got lost, and was being
rediscovered in his times,
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:43:53 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:02:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:50:46 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
For instance we may be living through the end of "The American
Experiment", but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people in
1863 thought that, too.
Probably it was more the people in the South back then, whereas
nowadays the feeling would be a bit more widespread ...
Thanks to American journalism...
Is that in spite of, or because of, American notions of a rCLfree
pressrCY?
Is it still a rCLspecial military operationrCY? Or has it become a rCLwarrCY >now?
On 7/21/2026 8:48 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
[...]
Discussion on the Hot Line revealed --
The US had not noticed how 'offensive' the Soviet Union had
considered it to be, when the US had put Jupiter missiles in Turkey,
shortly before (a very short distance from the USSR). The deal:
the US agreed to remove those weapons and the USSR would not
leave missiles in Cuba.
But that generation passed, and the next generation either did not
notice, or if it noticved, did not care how 'offensive' the Russian
Federation would consider it to be if Nato put missiles in Ukraine,
thereby provoking the Russian Federation to invade Ukraine,
IIRC, Russia invaded before NATO began selling missiles to Ukraine.
But you do have a point in regard to NATO expanding to include most
of the old Warsaw pact in Eastern Europe plus the Baltics.
But (again IIRC), in that time frame there was actually serious talk
about Russia herself joining NATO (shades of Pournelle's Co-diminion).
and demand
that the fighting continue until the Russian Federation agrees to have
Nato troops in Ukraine, offensive or not.
I think you'll find that the demands are that Russia stops the agression
and withdraws from the country it has invaded. Nato troops in Ukraine
are but one possible way to dissuade Russia from trying again.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:43:53 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:02:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:50:46 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
For instance we may be living through the end of "The American
Experiment", but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people in 1863
thought that, too.
Probably it was more the people in the South back then, whereas
nowadays the feeling would be a bit more widespread ...
Thanks to American journalism...
Is that in spite of, or because of, American notions of a rCLfree pressrCY?
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 14:46:31 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
Discussion on the Hot Line revealed --
The US had not noticed how 'offensive' the Soviet Union had
considered it to be, when the US had put Jupiter missiles in Turkey, >>shortly before (a very short distance from the USSR). The deal:
the US agreed to remove those weapons and the USSR would not
leave missiles in Cuba.
But that generation passed, and the next generation either did not
notice, or if it noticved, did not care how 'offensive' the Russian Federation would consider it to be if Nato put missiles in Ukraine,
thereby provoking the Russian Federation to invade Ukraine, and demand
that the fighting continue until the Russian Federation agrees to have
Nato troops in Ukraine, offensive or not.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:28:41 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Petrarca inverted the up to then usual imagery: Classical antiquity
as 'dark' because lacking the light of christianity into light,
because of knowledge and reson that got lost, and was being
rediscovered in his times,
Ironic, isn't it, since we now use the term "Dark Ages" to refer
to precisely those times when the Christian world had forgotten
the learning of pagan antiquity ...
But that generation passed, and the next generation either did not
notice, or if it noticved, did not care how 'offensive' the Russian
Federation would consider it to be
if Nato put missiles in Ukraine,
thereby provoking the Russian Federation to invade Ukraine,
IIRC, Russia invaded before NATO began selling missiles to Ukraine.
It was what those in the trade like to refer to as a "preemptive
strike".
It was what those in the trade like to refer to as a "preemptive
strike".
Putin's aggression has been an excellent "advertisement" for NATO
membership and certainly motivated the recently joining countries.
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 01:31:37 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:43:53 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:02:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:50:46 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
For instance we may be living through the end of "The American
Experiment", but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people in
1863 thought that, too.
Probably it was more the people in the South back then, whereas
nowadays the feeling would be a bit more widespread ...
Thanks to American journalism...
Is that in spite of, or because of, American notions of a rCLfree
pressrCY?
I think the shadow of W.T. Stead lurks and his ideas of "government
by journalism."
And again, the Enlightenment again used the light versus dark
imagery against the unreason of christian fanatism and
fundamentalism that led to all those wars of religion of the 17th
century,
Adam Funk wrote:
Putin's aggression has been an excellent "advertisement" for NATO
membership and certainly motivated the recently joining countries.
Sweden, for example, giving up its prized centuries-long tradition of neutrality.
In other words, nothing that happened in all that prior time has
made it feel as unsafe as Russia\342\200\231s actions now.
On 7/22/2026 9:21 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
But that generation passed, and the next generation either did not
notice, or if it noticved, did not care how 'offensive' the Russian
Federation would consider it to be
[Line break inserted to highlight the claim I reacted to]
if Nato put missiles in Ukraine,
thereby provoking the Russian Federation to invade Ukraine,
IIRC, Russia invaded before NATO began selling missiles to Ukraine.
It was what those in the trade like to refer to as a "preemptive
strike".
Please do not move the goalposts.
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:21:53 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
It was what those in the trade like to refer to as a "preemptive
strike".
rCLPreemptive strikerCY is what you call it when the party doing the
striking is on your side.
Otherwise itrCOs an rCLunprovoked act of aggressionrCY.
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:58:56 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:21:53 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
It was what those in the trade like to refer to as a "preemptive
strike".
rCLPreemptive strikerCY is what you call it when the party doing the
striking is on your side.
Otherwise itrCOs an rCLunprovoked act of aggressionrCY.
If you are the party doing the provoking.
Otherwise it is an attack or an invasion.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 06:55:15 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:58:56 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:21:53 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
It was what those in the trade like to refer to as a "preemptive
strike".
rCLPreemptive strikerCY is what you call it when the party doing the
striking is on your side.
Otherwise itrCOs an rCLunprovoked act of aggressionrCY.
If you are the party doing the provoking.
Otherwise it is an attack or an invasion.
But Putin insisted that all the rumours of a pending Russian invasion
were complete nonsense.
Then after he invaded, he insisted on calling it a rCLspecial military operationrCY, and people in Russia who referred to it as a rCLwarrCY were
put in jail.
Is it still a rCLspecial military operationrCY? Or has it become a rCLwarrCY now?
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 07:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 01:31:37 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:43:53 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:02:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote: >>>>
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:50:46 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
For instance we may be living through the end of "The American
Experiment", but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people in 1863 >>>>>> thought that, too.
Probably it was more the people in the South back then, whereas
nowadays the feeling would be a bit more widespread ...
Thanks to American journalism...
Is that in spite of, or because of, American notions of a rCLfree
pressrCY?
I think the shadow of W.T. Stead lurks and his ideas of "government by
journalism."
Was he an advocate of a rCLfree pressrCY?
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:12:12 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
And again, the Enlightenment again used the light versus dark
imagery against the unreason of christian fanatism and
fundamentalism that led to all those wars of religion of the 17th
century,
It's been a long, slow spread of secularism throughout the world in
the time since then. And some still want to roll it back.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 06:55:15 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:58:56 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:21:53 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
It was what those in the trade like to refer to as a "preemptive
strike".
rCLPreemptive strikerCY is what you call it when the party doing the
striking is on your side.
Otherwise itrCOs an rCLunprovoked act of aggressionrCY.
If you are the party doing the provoking.
Otherwise it is an attack or an invasion.
But Putin insisted that all the rumours of a pending Russian invasion
were complete nonsense.
Then after he invaded, he insisted on calling it a rCLspecial military >operationrCY, and people in Russia who referred to it as a rCLwarrCY were
put in jail.
Is it still a rCLspecial military operationrCY? Or has it become a rCLwarrCY >now?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:12:12 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
And again, the Enlightenment again used the light versus dark
imagery against the unreason of christian fanatism and
fundamentalism that led to all those wars of religion of the 17th
century,
It's been a long, slow spread of secularism throughout the world in
the time since then. And some still want to roll it back.
Spread? Really?
The present looks more like the start of a new dark age to me
than to a further spread of enlightenment,
Jan
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 05:47:41 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|+Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 06:55:15 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 22:58:56 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 09:21:53 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
It was what those in the trade like to refer to as a "preemptive
strike".
rCLPreemptive strikerCY is what you call it when the party doing the
striking is on your side.
Otherwise itrCOs an rCLunprovoked act of aggressionrCY.
If you are the party doing the provoking.
Otherwise it is an attack or an invasion.
But Putin insisted that all the rumours of a pending Russian invasion
were complete nonsense.
Then after he invaded, he insisted on calling it a rCLspecial military
operationrCY, and people in Russia who referred to it as a rCLwarrCY were
put in jail.
Is it still a rCLspecial military operationrCY? Or has it become a rCLwarrCY >> now?
In MyE a war is made up of a series of military operations, so one
could argue that one military operation does not make a war, but this
one has extended over several years and comprises several military operations. In MyE, that's a war.
I'm not sure what's special about them. For that you'll have to ask Mr
Putin.
On 7/23/26 07:52, Steve Hayes wrote:
In MyE a war is made up of a series of military operations, so oneMid-Year Exam? Methodist Youth Executive? Meyers Industries stock
could argue that one military operation does not make a war, but
this one has extended over several years and comprises several
military operations. In MyE, that's a war.
I'm not sure what's special about them. For that you'll have to ask
Mr Putin.
ticker?
On 23/07/26 22:25, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
On 7/23/26 07:52, Steve Hayes wrote:
In MyE a war is made up of a series of military operations, so oneMid-Year Exam? Methodist Youth Executive? Meyers Industries stock
could argue that one military operation does not make a war, but
this one has extended over several years and comprises several
military operations. In MyE, that's a war.
I'm not sure what's special about them. For that you'll have to ask
Mr Putin.
ticker?
This is why cross-posting is a bad idea. As long as the thread stayed in
AUE, everyone understood that MyE meant "my English". Probably somebody should have set followups many posts ago, but I don't have the patience
to figure out who inflicted the cross-posting on us.
I've lost track of why special military operations are of interest to SF fans, so (a little reluctantly) I've left the two groups in.
Peter Moylan wrote:
This is why cross-posting is a bad idea. As long as the thread
stayed in AUE, everyone understood that MyE meant "my English".
Probably somebody should have set followups many posts ago, but
I don't have the patience to figure out who inflicted the
cross-posting on us.
It started with a longtime rec.art.sf.fandom poster asking, "Is
there a term for a name that was not in use at the time? For
instance World War I, the Angevin Empire, Old English, the Jurassic
Period, etc., none of which were used at the relevant time," and cross-posting to alt.usage.english.
Whether he should have done this is left as an exercise to the reader.
Not to mention that he insisted on calling the Ukrainians Nazis.
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:02:05 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 07:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 01:31:37 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:43:53 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:02:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote: >>>>>
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:50:46 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
For instance we may be living through the end of "The American
Experiment", but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people in
1863 thought that, too.
Probably it was more the people in the South back then, whereas
nowadays the feeling would be a bit more widespread ...
Thanks to American journalism...
Is that in spite of, or because of, American notions of a rCLfree
pressrCY?
I think the shadow of W.T. Stead lurks and his ideas of
"government by journalism."
Was he an advocate of a rCLfree pressrCY?
He was an advocate of an activist press.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
It's been a long, slow spread of secularism throughout the world in
the time since then. And some still want to roll it back.
Spread? Really?
The present looks more like the start of a new dark age to me
than to a further spread of enlightenment,
On 7/19/26 08:01, occam wrote:
On 19/07/2026 11:16, Phil wrote:
On 19/07/2026 03:18, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World >>>>> War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II.-a How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
Once was accepted that the 1914-1918 war was a *world* war, in contrast
to all previous wars, then it seems reasonable to start calling it the
First World War. The stress, though, would properly be on 'World'.
Later, when the Second World War arrives, stress shifts to 'First'.
Though that may sound logical, the consensus is that the designation
"World War I" was officially adopted /after/ World War II, as historians
needed to distinguish it from the subsequent global conflict. (I have
read this somewhere, but you local AI search will confirm it.)
Well, it was apparently unofficially adopted well before that.
And my local AI search will confirm all sorts of things that just aren't true.
On 19/07/2026 13:01, occam wrote:
On 19/07/2026 11:16, Phil wrote:
On 19/07/2026 03:18, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
I don't know the specifics but I've heard that there was a history
of "The Great War" written in the 1920s that referred to it as World >>>>> War I, or, maybe The First World War.
I wouldn't think anyone would call it that before World War II.-a How
would anyone know there would be a *second* world war?
Once was accepted that the 1914-1918 war was a *world* war, in contrast
to all previous wars, then it seems reasonable to start calling it the
First World War. The stress, though, would properly be on 'World'.
Later, when the Second World War arrives, stress shifts to 'First'.
Though that may sound logical, the consensus is that the designation
"World War I" was officially adopted /after/ World War II, as historians
needed to distinguish it from the subsequent global conflict. (I have
read this somewhere, but you local AI search will confirm it.)
Fair point, but I think that 'First World War' and 'World War I' are different in that respect.
Somewhat related: 'World War III' is already a well-recognised concept
even though it hasn't happened (yet). Makes me wonder when the term
'World War II' first started to be used. Did FDR ever accuse anyone of "gambling with World War II"?
Not to mention that he insisted on calling the Ukrainians Nazis.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:19:07 -0700, Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com>
wrote:
Not to mention that he insisted on calling the Ukrainians Nazis.
Did he?
Or was he merely referring to the Nazi elements in Ukrainian
society, which certainly exist ...
... and have had considerable infgluence in Ukraine, especially
since 2014.
%22world+war+ii%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3Google Ngram show a steep rise in the use of both "World War I" and
"World War II" starting in 1931.
Ngram is not an AI service
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22world+war+I%22%2C+
pt
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
This is why cross-posting is a bad idea. As long as the thread stayed
in AUE, everyone understood that MyE meant "my English".
Probably somebody should have set followups many posts ago, but I
don't have the patience to figure out who inflicted the cross-posting
on us.
It started with a longtime rec.art.sf.fandom poster asking, "Is there a
term for a name that was not in use at the time? For instance World
War I, the Angevin Empire, Old English, the Jurassic Period, etc., none
of which were used at the relevant time," and cross-posting to
alt.usage.english.
Okay, I confess. I did it. I'm guilty.
Whether he should have done this is left as an exercise to the reader.
But I'm not remorseful. I think I breathed new life into both
newsgroups. And the thread continues in both newsgroups. So anyone who finds it interesting should read both, since many followups are *not*
being crossposted.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 07:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:02:05 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 07:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 01:31:37 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote: >>>>
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:43:53 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:02:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:50:46 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
For instance we may be living through the end of "The American >>>>>>>> Experiment", but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people in >>>>>>>> 1863 thought that, too.
Probably it was more the people in the South back then, whereas
nowadays the feeling would be a bit more widespread ...
Thanks to American journalism...
Is that in spite of, or because of, American notions of a rCLfree
pressrCY?
I think the shadow of W.T. Stead lurks and his ideas of "government
by journalism."
Was he an advocate of a rCLfree pressrCY?
He was an advocate of an activist press.
Should a press be free to be rCLactivistrCY? Or should that be controlled?
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:44:49 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:19:07 -0700, Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com>
wrote:
Not to mention that he insisted on calling the Ukrainians Nazis.
Did he?
So, Ukrainians are not Nazis.
Or was he merely referring to the Nazi elements in Ukrainian
society, which certainly exist ...
So, *some* Ukrainians are Nazis.
... and have had considerable infgluence in Ukraine, especially
since 2014.
So, Ukraine is a Nazi nation.
But Ukrainians are not Nazis, even though they live in a Nazi nation?
Got it.
China and Vietnam both somehow manage to retain their Communist
parties in power, even as they grow economically more successful and >powerful. But I wonder how far that can be taken ...
The current regime in the USA may be trying to lead the charge back to
the Dark Ages, that is true. But the more they try to use their power
over the rest of the world to get them to follow, the weaker they
become.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:13:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|+Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:44:49 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
Or was he merely referring to the Nazi elements in Ukrainian
society, which certainly exist ...
So, *some* Ukrainians are Nazis.
Yes.
... and have had considerable infgluence in Ukraine, especially
since 2014.
So, Ukraine is a Nazi nation.
No.
Cross-posting has been fruitful for getting to know another human
outpost on the internet.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 23:23:34 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 07:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:02:05 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 07:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 01:31:37 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 07:43:53 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:02:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:50:46 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
For instance we may be living through the end of "The
American Experiment", but I'd be willing to bet that a lot
of people in 1863 thought that, too.
Probably it was more the people in the South back then,
whereas nowadays the feeling would be a bit more widespread
...
Thanks to American journalism...
Is that in spite of, or because of, American notions of a rCLfree
pressrCY?
I think the shadow of W.T. Stead lurks and his ideas of
"government by journalism."
Was he an advocate of a rCLfree pressrCY?
He was an advocate of an activist press.
Should a press be free to be rCLactivistrCY? Or should that be
controlled?
I think an activist press will end up being controlled.
In fact, this is totalitarianism American-style: strictly a
non-government affair.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:19:07 -0700, Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com>
wrote:
Not to mention that he insisted on calling the Ukrainians Nazis.
Did he?
Or was he merely referring to the Nazi elements in Ukrainian society,
which certainly exist, and have had considerable infgluence in
Ukraine, especially since 2014.
When the Ukrainin government recently honoured a Nazi hero, the Polish government also objected, and they weren't calling all Ukrainian
Nazis. But the fact remains that there are influential Nazis in
Ukraine, and the Ukrainian government recently honoured one of their
heroes.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:56:44 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
I think an activist press will end up being controlled.
I think the shadow of W.T. Stead lurks and his ideas of "government >>>>>> by journalism."
Was he an advocate of a rCLfree pressrCY?
He was an advocate of an activist press.
Should a press be free to be rCLactivistrCY? Or should that be controlled? >>
Controlled by whom -- somebody opposed to the activism, or in favour of
it? Why should that happen particularly to rCLactivistrCY press, as opposed to rCLnon-activistrCY press?
In fact, this is totalitarianism American-style: strictly a
non-government affair.
The lack of press freedom in the USA may partly be blamed on the
corporates that own the press, but the current Government is trying
quite hard to make a contribution too.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:54:38 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:13:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|+Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:44:49 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
Or was he merely referring to the Nazi elements in Ukrainian
society, which certainly exist ...
So, *some* Ukrainians are Nazis.
Yes.
... and have had considerable infgluence in Ukraine, especially
since 2014.
So, Ukraine is a Nazi nation.
No.
Not at all? So what problem does Putin have with Nazis in Ukraine,
then?
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 02:15:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:54:38 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:13:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:44:49 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
Or was he merely referring to the Nazi elements in Ukrainian
society, which certainly exist ...
So, *some* Ukrainians are Nazis.
Yes.
... and have had considerable infgluence in Ukraine, especially
since 2014.
So, Ukraine is a Nazi nation.
No.
Not at all? So what problem does Putin have with Nazis in Ukraine,
then?
That is something you'd have to ask him if you wanted an accurate
answer.
Commenting on English usage doesn't require a qualification in
mindreading, especially tring to read the minds of politicians who
don't think in English.
But I've seen not evidence that he thinks all Ukrainians are Nazis,
only that he thinks that the Nazi influence on the Ukrainian
government is a problem.
But if you want to know *why* he thinks it is--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
a problem, you'd have to ask him.
Not at all? So what problem does Putin have with Nazis in Ukraine,
then?
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 02:15:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|+Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Not at all? So what problem does Putin have with Nazis in Ukraine,
then?
That is something you'd have to ask him if you wanted an accurate
answer.
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 17:26:43 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
But I've seen not evidence that he thinks all Ukrainians are Nazis,
only that he thinks that the Nazi influence on the Ukrainian
government is a problem.
Is he even concerned about that?
I think his interest in the Ukraine is only about territorial
possession and returning the Ukraine to the Russian "Empire" and
stopping them from joining NATO.
That the press could control the government, or at least the
electoral process, as per Stead, is not implausible. Here in
Washington we just had a Democratic primary where seven candidates
were up for mayor. The press exerted its power simply by ignoring
five of them.
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 07:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
That the press could control the government, or at least the
electoral process, as per Stead, is not implausible. Here in
Washington we just had a Democratic primary where seven candidates
were up for mayor. The press exerted its power simply by ignoring
five of them.
Surely thererCOs nothing stopping you from setting up your own media
channel to publicize the rCLfactsrCY that you feel the other channels are ignoring.
IsnrCOt that what rCLfreedom of the pressrCY is supposed to be about?
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 17:26:43 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 02:15:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|+Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Not at all? So what problem does Putin have with Nazis in Ukraine,
then?
That is something you'd have to ask him if you wanted an accurate
answer.
We did get an answer, further back in the thread, but you seemed to
cast doubt on that, for some reason. This in spite of the fact that
you have now admitted you donrCOt know any better.
On 7/25/2026 6:47 PM, Lawrence DAOliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 07:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
That the press could control the government, or at least the
electoral process, as per Stead, is not implausible. Here in
Washington we just had a Democratic primary where seven candidates
were up for mayor. The press exerted its power simply by ignoring
five of them.
Surely thereAs nothing stopping you from setting up your own media
channel to publicize the ofactso that you feel the other channels are
ignoring.
IsnAt that what ofreedom of the presso is supposed to be about?
I have no doubt that all the candidates had websites, but most people
aren't going to actively seek out information on every fringe
candidate - they rely on their usual media outlets.
How much do you know about your local Green Party or Libertarian
candidates?
On 7/25/2026 6:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 07:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
That the press could control the government, or at least the
electoral process, as per Stead, is not implausible. Here in
Washington we just had a Democratic primary where seven
candidates were up for mayor. The press exerted its power simply
by ignoring five of them.
Surely thererCOs nothing stopping you from setting up your own media
channel to publicize the rCLfactsrCY that you feel the other channels
are ignoring.
IsnrCOt that what rCLfreedom of the pressrCY is supposed to be about?
I have no doubt that all the candidates had websites, but most
people aren't going to actively seek out information on every fringe candidate - they rely on their usual media outlets.
How much do you know about your local Green Party or Libertarian
candidates?
On 7/25/2026 6:41 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 17:26:43 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 02:15:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|+Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Not at all? So what problem does Putin have with Nazis in Ukraine,
then?
That is something you'd have to ask him if you wanted an accurate
answer.
We did get an answer, further back in the thread, but you seemed to
cast doubt on that, for some reason. This in spite of the fact that
you have now admitted you donrCOt know any better.
I've been following the war pretty closely, including some Russian
media.
There was a certain amount of pro-Nazi sentiment in a number of
Eastern European countries during WW2, seeing Germany potentially
as a better partner than the Soviets. When you're trapped between
a wolf and a bear, decisions get difficult.
Ukraine, in particular, remembers the Holodomor, when Stalin
deliberately starved literally millions of Ukrainians to death.
So, a lot of Ukrainians associate the Nazis at least in part with
resistance to Russia. Some of the military unit symbolism in the
current war has been quite concerning.
Are there Ukrainian neo-Nazis? Probably; they seem to exist
pretty much everywhere, including in the US.
Are they running the government or military? Not even faintly.
Its worth pointing out the Zelensky is Jewish.
However, Russian media for internal consumption has taken
this history and run with it, describing the Kiev government
as 'Nazi', 'Satanic', 'Atheist', etc.
pt
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 20:59:58 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/25/2026 6:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 07:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
That the press could control the government, or at least the
electoral process, as per Stead, is not implausible. Here in
Washington we just had a Democratic primary where seven candidates
were up for mayor. The press exerted its power simply by ignoring
five of them.
What "press" ignored them. Not the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/interactive/2026/06/03/where-dc-mayoral-council-candidates-stand-key-issues/
Surely thererCOs nothing stopping you from setting up your own media
channel to publicize the rCLfactsrCY that you feel the other channels are >>> ignoring.
IsnrCOt that what rCLfreedom of the pressrCY is supposed to be about?
I have no doubt that all the candidates had websites, but most people
aren't going to actively seek out information on every fringe
candidate - they rely on their usual media outlets.
How much do you know about your local Green Party or Libertarian
candidates?
Actually, the first things most candidates do is create a website. Of course, their website is going to contain only good things about them
and state promises they probably won't be able to effect.
Newpaper subscriptions are way down. Very few people actually get a newspaper delivered to them. Some newspapers have gone online only
because of low interest in home delivery. Most people (in the US),
if they do read a newspaper, read an online edition.
So they are going to go to their computer to read anything. What they
read is based on what their fingers tap out on the keyboard.
There was a certain amount of pro-Nazi sentiment in a number of
Eastern European countries during WW2, seeing Germany potentially as
a better partner than the Soviets. When you're trapped between a
wolf and a bear, decisions get difficult.
However, Russian media for internal consumption has taken
this history and run with it, describing the Kiev government
as 'Nazi', 'Satanic', 'Atheist', etc.
I'll add that the Nazi's actual plan for Ukraine involved genocide
and forced expulsion on a scale that would have made the Holodomor
look like a picnic. Hitler didn't like Slavs.
On 7/25/2026 9:34 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 20:59:58 -0400, CryptoengineerRead? I expect most people get their news from TV.
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/25/2026 6:47 PM, Lawrence DAOliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 07:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
That the press could control the government, or at least the
electoral process, as per Stead, is not implausible. Here in
Washington we just had a Democratic primary where seven candidates
were up for mayor. The press exerted its power simply by ignoring
five of them.
What "press" ignored them. Not the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/interactive/2026/06/03/where-dc-mayoral-council-candidates-stand-key-issues/
Surely thereAs nothing stopping you from setting up your own media
channel to publicize the ofactso that you feel the other channels are
ignoring.
IsnAt that what ofreedom of the presso is supposed to be about?
I have no doubt that all the candidates had websites, but most people
aren't going to actively seek out information on every fringe
candidate - they rely on their usual media outlets.
How much do you know about your local Green Party or Libertarian
candidates?
Actually, the first things most candidates do is create a website. Of
course, their website is going to contain only good things about them
and state promises they probably won't be able to effect.
Newpaper subscriptions are way down. Very few people actually get a
newspaper delivered to them. Some newspapers have gone online only
because of low interest in home delivery. Most people (in the US),
if they do read a newspaper, read an online edition.
So they are going to go to their computer to read anything. What they
read is based on what their fingers tap out on the keyboard.
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 21:59:19 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/25/2026 9:34 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:I agree, but you said that " The press exerted its power simply by
Read? I expect most people get their news from TV.
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 20:59:58 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 7/25/2026 6:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
I have no doubt that all the candidates had websites, but most people
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 07:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
That the press could control the government, or at least the
electoral process, as per Stead, is not implausible. Here in
Washington we just had a Democratic primary where seven candidates >>>>>> were up for mayor. The press exerted its power simply by ignoring
five of them.
Surely thererCOs nothing stopping you from setting up your own media >>>>> channel to publicize the rCLfactsrCY that you feel the other channels are >>>>> ignoring.
IsnrCOt that what rCLfreedom of the pressrCY is supposed to be about? >>>>
aren't going to actively seek out information on every fringe
candidate - they rely on their usual media outlets.
Newpaper subscriptions are way down. Very few people actually get
a newspaper delivered to them. Some newspapers have gone online
only because of low interest in home delivery. Most people (in the
US), if they do read a newspaper, read an online edition.
So they are going to go to their computer to read anything. What
they read is based on what their fingers tap out on the keyboard.
ignoring five of them." and I responded to that.
On 26/07/26 10:59, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 7/25/2026 6:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 07:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
That the press could control the government, or at least the
electoral process, as per Stead, is not implausible. Here in
Washington we just had a Democratic primary where seven candidates
were up for mayor. The press exerted its power simply by ignoring
five of them.
Surely thererCOs nothing stopping you from setting up your own media
channel to publicize the rCLfactsrCY that you feel the other channels are >>> ignoring.
IsnrCOt that what rCLfreedom of the pressrCY is supposed to be about?
I have no doubt that all the candidates had websites, but most people
aren't going to actively seek out information on every fringe candidate
- they rely on their usual media outlets.
How much do you know about your local Green Party or Libertarian
candidates?
Web sites are easy to set up, but they don't reach enough people. Few minority candidates have friends rich enough to own a newspaper or a TV station. Thus, the minor candidates get little coverage.
In Australia, the non-Murdoch newspapers generally run a big multi-page article, when an election is coming up, describing all their candidates
and their policies. (Maybe the Murdoch papers do this too, but it's been
a long time since I last read a Murdoch paper.) That used to be good information for voters, covering both major and minor candidates. Now, though, few people read newspapers. TV is the best way to get policy information out, but only the rich parties can afford a lot of TV advertising.
The internet has lots of information, but it's usually biased.
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 07:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
That the press could control the government, or at least the
electoral process, as per Stead, is not implausible. Here in
Washington we just had a Democratic primary where seven candidates
were up for mayor. The press exerted its power simply by ignoring
five of them.
Surely thererCOs nothing stopping you from setting up your own media
channel to publicize the rCLfactsrCY that you feel the other channels are >ignoring.
IsnrCOt that what rCLfreedom of the pressrCY is supposed to be about?
And this morning I was reading an article in an old issue of the Virginia Gazette about a Jewish doctor here in Williamsburg who was growing these "tomato" plants discovered in South America that were known to be toxic but may have medicinal use.
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 17:26:43 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 02:15:44 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|+Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:54:38 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 07:13:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|+Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:44:49 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
Or was he merely referring to the Nazi elements in Ukrainian
society, which certainly exist ...
So, *some* Ukrainians are Nazis.
Yes.
... and have had considerable infgluence in Ukraine, especially
since 2014.
So, Ukraine is a Nazi nation.
No.
Not at all? So what problem does Putin have with Nazis in Ukraine,
then?
That is something you'd have to ask him if you wanted an accurate
answer.
Commenting on English usage doesn't require a qualification in
mindreading, especially tring to read the minds of politicians who
don't think in English.
But I've seen not evidence that he thinks all Ukrainians are Nazis,
only that he thinks that the Nazi influence on the Ukrainian
government is a problem.
Is he even concerned about that? I think his interest in the Ukraine
is only about territorial possession and returning the Ukraine to the
Russian "Empire" and stopping them from joining NATO.
Tomato plants *are* toxic. The tomatoes are not.
On 7/26/26 08:17, Scott Dorsey wrote:
And this morning I was reading an article in an old issue of the Virginia
Gazette about a Jewish doctor here in Williamsburg who was growing these
"tomato" plants discovered in South America that were known to be toxic but >> may have medicinal use.
Tomato plants *are* toxic. The tomatoes are not.
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/26 08:17, Scott Dorsey wrote:
And this morning I was reading an article in an old issue of the Virginia >>> Gazette about a Jewish doctor here in Williamsburg who was growing these >>> "tomato" plants discovered in South America that were known to be toxic but >>> may have medicinal use.
Tomato plants *are* toxic. The tomatoes are not.
It's true, you should never smoke tomato leaf cigars.
--scott
On 7/26/26 10:35, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's true, you should never smoke tomato leaf cigars.
Or for that matter, tobacco leaf cigars.
Both are members of the nightshade family (Solanaceae), which includes >tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, eggplants, and tobacco. For the first four,
the fruits/tubers are edible, but not the leaves. (To be more precise, >potatoes are edible unless they are green or sprouting.)
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/26 10:35, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's true, you should never smoke tomato leaf cigars.
Or for that matter, tobacco leaf cigars.
Jesse Helms said on C-Span that tobacco produced carbon monoxide which
killed bacteria and prevented lung infections, and how tobacco was the
most healthful thing you could put in your body. And he should know,
given how close he was with the tobacco companies.
If cigars were bad for you, George Burns would not be alive today.
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 21:21:11 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
There was a certain amount of pro-Nazi sentiment in a number of
Eastern European countries during WW2, seeing Germany potentially as
a better partner than the Soviets. When you're trapped between a
wolf and a bear, decisions get difficult.
Not just among them. Remember why the WWI Allies turned a blind eye as
Hitler began to re-arm Germany, contrary to the agreements from the
end of that War? It was because he was anti-Communist, and they saw
Communism as a greater threat than Fascism.
However, Russian media for internal consumption has taken
this history and run with it, describing the Kiev government
as 'Nazi', 'Satanic', 'Atheist', etc.
The Communists were Atheists. Hitler was not.
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/26 10:35, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's true, you should never smoke tomato leaf cigars.
Or for that matter, tobacco leaf cigars.
Jesse Helms said on C-Span that tobacco produced carbon monoxide which
killed bacteria and prevented lung infections, and how tobacco was the
most healthful thing you could put in your body. And he should know,
given how close he was with the tobacco companies.
If cigars were bad for you, George Burns would not be alive today.
Both are members of the nightshade family (Solanaceae), which includes
tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, eggplants, and tobacco. For the first four,
the fruits/tubers are edible, but not the leaves. (To be more precise,
potatoes are edible unless they are green or sprouting.)
I don't know if they can be cross-grafted, but it is definitely possible
to graft tomatoes onto jimsonweed roots, producing hallucinogenic tomatoes. --scott
On 7/26/26 08:17, Scott Dorsey wrote:
And this morning I was reading an article in an old issue of the Virginia Gazette about a Jewish doctor here in Williamsburg who was growing these "tomato" plants discovered in South America that were known to be toxic but may have medicinal use.
Tomato plants *are* toxic. The tomatoes are not.
"Evelyn C. Leeper" <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
Tomato plants *are* toxic. The tomatoes are not.
Ditching that stem nub and green core keeps you safe because
those dense zones harbor sneaky toxins like solanine that can
wreck your stomach. Plus, the rough stem crevice easily traps
dirty bacteria and chemicals that don't wash off completely.
Slicing that section out completely ensures you don't drag
nasties into the clean fruit with your knife.
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/26 10:35, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's true, you should never smoke tomato leaf cigars.
Or for that matter, tobacco leaf cigars.
Jesse Helms said on C-Span that tobacco produced carbon monoxide which
killed bacteria and prevented lung infections, and how tobacco was the
most healthful thing you could put in your body. And he should know,
given how close he was with the tobacco companies.
If cigars were bad for you, George Burns would not be alive today.
Both are members of the nightshade family (Solanaceae), which includes
tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, eggplants, and tobacco. For the first four,
the fruits/tubers are edible, but not the leaves. (To be more precise,
potatoes are edible unless they are green or sprouting.)
I don't know if they can be cross-grafted, but it is definitely possible
to graft tomatoes onto jimsonweed roots, producing hallucinogenic tomatoes. --scott
On 7/25/2026 10:37 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 21:21:11 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
However, Russian media for internal consumption has taken this
history and run with it, describing the Kiev government as 'Nazi',
'Satanic', 'Atheist', etc.
The Communists were Atheists. Hitler was not.
The current Russian line is to promote the Orthodox Church, with
Russia as the last bastion of true Christian values, and a mission
to correct Western decadence. The term to search is 'Russkiy Mir'
(Russian World)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
Its proposals are very parallel to MAGA's.
(To be more precise, potatoes are edible unless they are green or
sprouting.)
Technically the Washington Post didn't literally ignore the five
candidates but it mentioned them only in passing in articles devoted
to the two candidates that it called "leading candidates" without
ever having explained why they were "leading." I wish I had saved
links to all of the Post's coverage to be able to demonstrate its
sly manipulation.
On 7/26/26 11:01, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/26 10:35, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's true, you should never smoke tomato leaf cigars.
Or for that matter, tobacco leaf cigars.
Jesse Helms said on C-Span that tobacco produced carbon monoxide which
killed bacteria and prevented lung infections, and how tobacco was the
most healthful thing you could put in your body. And he should know,
given how close he was with the tobacco companies.
If cigars were bad for you, George Burns would not be alive today.
For those who don't get it, Burns died thirty years ago. (He did live to >100, though.)
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 07:55:41 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
Technically the Washington Post didn't literally ignore the five
candidates but it mentioned them only in passing in articles devoted
to the two candidates that it called "leading candidates" without
ever having explained why they were "leading." I wish I had saved
links to all of the Post's coverage to be able to demonstrate its
sly manipulation.
Was the Post able to prevent other rival papers from covering the
information it was not?
The Washington Star is gone. The Washington Times is very much a
mouthpiece of the current administration and no real competition.
There is the City Paper weekly which is probably the best source
for local city election coverage. I would not be surprised if they
at least mentioned all the candidates.
Is there a term for a name that was not in use at the time? For
instance World War I, the Angevin Empire, Old English, the Jurassic
Period, etc., none of which were used at the relevant time.
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:11:52 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Is there a term for a name that was not in use at the time? For
instance World War I, the Angevin Empire, Old English, the Jurassic
Period, etc., none of which were used at the relevant time.
The entire rCLBCrCY era. Plus rCLADrCY up to about the 7th century.
The next time somebody tries to be a smartarse about claiming that the
21st century began in 2001, not 2000, point out to them that there was
no rCLyear 1rCY; the Gregorian Calendar didnrCOt actually start until 1582. And in some places, not even then.
The rCLpre-RaphaelitesrCY, on the other hand ...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
The next time somebody tries to be a smartarse about claiming that
the 21st century began in 2001, not 2000, point out to them that
there was no rCLyear 1rCY; the Gregorian Calendar didnrCOt actually start
until 1582. And in some places, not even then.
I assume you meant that there was no "year 0", unless you meant
there wasn't a "year 1" or a "year 2" or ...
On 7/25/2026 10:37 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 21:21:11 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
There was a certain amount of pro-Nazi sentiment in a number of
Eastern European countries during WW2, seeing Germany potentially as
a better partner than the Soviets. When you're trapped between a
wolf and a bear, decisions get difficult.
Not just among them. Remember why the WWI Allies turned a blind eye as
Hitler began to re-arm Germany, contrary to the agreements from the
end of that War? It was because he was anti-Communist, and they saw
Communism as a greater threat than Fascism.
However, Russian media for internal consumption has taken
this history and run with it, describing the Kiev government
as 'Nazi', 'Satanic', 'Atheist', etc.
The Communists were Atheists. Hitler was not.
The current Russian line is to promote the Orthodox Church,
with Russia as the last bastion of true Christian values, and
a mission to correct Western decadence. The term to search is
'Russkiy Mir' (Russian World)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
Its proposals are very parallel to MAGA's.
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
The next time somebody tries to be a smartarse about claiming that
the 21st century began in 2001, not 2000, point out to them that
there was no rCLyear 1rCY; the Gregorian Calendar didnrCOt actually start >>> until 1582. And in some places, not even then.
I assume you meant that there was no "year 0", unless you meant
there wasn't a "year 1" or a "year 2" or ...
I'm not sure what he meant. There certainly was a year 1, of the
proleptic Gregorian Calendar. Meaning that nobody called it that at
the time. But yes, it immediately followed the year 1 BC, which was
also proleptic. But perfectly well defined.
The 21st century began in 2001, the 20th century began in 1901, ...
the 1st century began in the year 1. The fact that nobody at the time
called it the year 1 is irrelevant.
The 1st century BC, which should really be called the *last* century
BC, comprised the years 100 BC through 1 BC.
So if Lawrence thinks the 21st century didn't begin in 2001, he must
either think some centuries were longer or shorter than 100 years, or
that the 1st century AD included some dates from 1 BC, or that the
last century BC included some dates from 1 AD. Or that there was a
year 0. Or maybe 2 years 0, with 0 BC followed by 0 AD.
There was indeed no year 0.
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/26 11:01, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/26 10:35, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's true, you should never smoke tomato leaf cigars.
Or for that matter, tobacco leaf cigars.
Jesse Helms said on C-Span that tobacco produced carbon monoxide which
killed bacteria and prevented lung infections, and how tobacco was the
most healthful thing you could put in your body. And he should know,
given how close he was with the tobacco companies.
If cigars were bad for you, George Burns would not be alive today.
For those who don't get it, Burns died thirty years ago. (He did live to >>100, though.)
How do you know? He's probably sharing a fine Cohiba in Wyoming right now >with Fidel Castro and Huey Long. Even the man's name promotes cigar
smoking.
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 07:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
That the press could control the government, or at least the
electoral process, as per Stead, is not implausible. Here in
Washington we just had a Democratic primary where seven candidates
were up for mayor. The press exerted its power simply by ignoring
five of them.
Surely there's nothing stopping you from setting up your own media
channel to publicize the "facts" that you feel the other channels are ignoring.
Isn't that what "freedom of the press" is supposed to be about?
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
The next time somebody tries to be a smartarse about claiming that
the 21st century began in 2001, not 2000, point out to them that
there was no |orCo-cyear 1|orCo-c; the Gregorian Calendar didn|orCo-Ot actually start
until 1582. And in some places, not even then.
I assume you meant that there was no "year 0", unless you meant
there wasn't a "year 1" or a "year 2" or ...
I'm not sure what he meant. There certainly was a year 1, of the
proleptic Gregorian Calendar. Meaning that nobody called it that at
the time. But yes, it immediately followed the year 1 BC, which was
also proleptic. But perfectly well defined.
Just as there certainly was a World War I, even though nobody called
it that at the time. And some people certainly did speak Old English,
even though nobody called it that at the time.
And Germany definitely exists, even though people in Germany don't
call it Germany.
There was indeed no year 0. 2000 years before the year 1000 was not
1000 BC, but 1001 BC. 2000 years after the year 1000 BC was not 1000
AD, but 1001 AD. That's not how I would have designed it, but nobody consulted me.
Similarly with the Julian calendar.
"Proleptic" just means that if anyone tries to sell you a coin marked something like AD 79 or 44 BC, you'll instantly know it's fake -- even
if the numbers are given as roman numerals.
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 02:20:55 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
There was indeed no year 0.
Astronomers number the years to include a year 0.
Doesn't mean there was a year 0. Just as numbering the year after that
as "year 1" doesn't mean there actually was a "year 1".
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 10:55:40 -0400, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
(To be more precise, potatoes are edible unless they are green or sprouting.)
From what I gather, potatoes can turn toxic even without visible
evidence of green colour or sprouting.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 07:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
That the press could control the government, or at least the
electoral process, as per Stead, is not implausible. Here in
Washington we just had a Democratic primary where seven candidates
were up for mayor. The press exerted its power simply by ignoring
five of them.
Surely there's nothing stopping you from setting up your own media
channel to publicize the "facts" that you feel the other channels are ignoring.
Isn't that what "freedom of the press" is supposed to be about?
'Freedom of the press' is that long ago that most Americans have
forgotten what it was like.
There is a World Press Freedom Index (WPFI) that keeps track of how bad
it is, really.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index>
The USA is down somewhere in the middle, barely ahead of the really
nasty counties. (and going down over the years)
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
"Proleptic" just means that if anyone tries to sell you a coin
marked something like AD 79 or 44 BC, you'll instantly know it's
fake -- even if the numbers are given as roman numerals.
But how about that letter from Marc Antony to Julius Caesar, warning
him about the upcoming year zero crisis?
Thus, the historians year 44 B.C. is the astronomers year -43,
(and it wasn't a leap year)
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 02:20:55 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
There was indeed no year 0.
Astronomers number the years to include a year 0.
DoesnrCOt mean there was a year 0. Just as numbering the year after that
as rCLyear 1rCY doesnrCOt mean there actually was a rCLyear 1rCY.
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
"Proleptic" just means that if anyone tries to sell you a coin marked
something like AD 79 or 44 BC, you'll instantly know it's fake -- even
if the numbers are given as roman numerals.
But how about that letter from Marc Antony to Julius Caesar,
warning him about the upcoming year zero crisis?
In article <11465bm$g5m$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/26 11:01, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/26 10:35, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's true, you should never smoke tomato leaf cigars.
Or for that matter, tobacco leaf cigars.
Jesse Helms said on C-Span that tobacco produced carbon monoxide which >>>> killed bacteria and prevented lung infections, and how tobacco was the >>>> most healthful thing you could put in your body. And he should know,
given how close he was with the tobacco companies.
If cigars were bad for you, George Burns would not be alive today.
For those who don't get it, Burns died thirty years ago. (He did live to >>> 100, though.)
How do you know? He's probably sharing a fine Cohiba in Wyoming right now >> with Fidel Castro and Huey Long. Even the man's name promotes cigar
smoking.
[Hal Heydt]
Oldest well documented age at death was 122 and about 4 months (I
could look up the exact number of days). It was a woman in
France.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
If cigars were bad for you, George Burns would not be alive today.
[Hal Heydt]
Oldest well documented age at death was 122 and about 4 months (I
could look up the exact number of days). It was a woman in
France.
The thing that really shocked everyone was when they found Jesus's birth >certificate, and the date said 4 BC.
On 7/27/26 02:24, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <11465bm$g5m$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/26 11:01, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/26 10:35, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's true, you should never smoke tomato leaf cigars.
Or for that matter, tobacco leaf cigars.
Jesse Helms said on C-Span that tobacco produced carbon monoxide which >>>> killed bacteria and prevented lung infections, and how tobacco was the >>>> most healthful thing you could put in your body. And he should know, >>>> given how close he was with the tobacco companies.
If cigars were bad for you, George Burns would not be alive today.
For those who don't get it, Burns died thirty years ago. (He did live to >>> 100, though.)
How do you know? He's probably sharing a fine Cohiba in Wyoming right now >> with Fidel Castro and Huey Long. Even the man's name promotes cigar
smoking.
[Hal Heydt]
Oldest well documented age at death was 122 and about 4 months (I
could look up the exact number of days). It was a woman in
France.
Jeanne Calment.
Not only was she the world's oldest person, but her financial
arrangements turned out fairly amazing; from Wikipedia:
"In 1965, aged 90 and with no heirs left, Calment signed a life estate contract on her apartment with civil law notary Andr|--Fran|oois Raffray, selling the property in exchange for a right of occupancy and a monthly revenue of 2,500 francs (re4380) until her death. Raffray died on 25 December 1995, by which time Calment had received more than double the apartment's value from him, and his family had to continue making
payments. She commented on the situation by saying, "in life, one
sometimes makes bad deals". In 1985, she moved into a nursing home,
having lived on her own until the age of 110."
But nonetheless, Raffray's family still had to continue paying the 2,500 francs each month for another ten years.
As Calment said of Raffray, "In life, one sometimes makes bad deals."
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
The thing that really shocked everyone was when they found Jesus's birth >certificate, and the date said 4 BC.
It was probably too late. Has ICE deported him yet?
On 7/27/26 02:24, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <11465bm$g5m$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/26 11:01, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/26 10:35, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's true, you should never smoke tomato leaf cigars.
Or for that matter, tobacco leaf cigars.
Jesse Helms said on C-Span that tobacco produced carbon monoxide which >>>>> killed bacteria and prevented lung infections, and how tobacco was the >>>>> most healthful thing you could put in your body.-a And he should know, >>>>> given how close he was with the tobacco companies.
If cigars were bad for you, George Burns would not be alive today.
For those who don't get it, Burns died thirty years ago. (He did
live to
100, though.)
How do you know?-a He's probably sharing a fine Cohiba in Wyoming
right now
with Fidel Castro and Huey Long.-a Even the man's name promotes cigar
smoking.
[Hal Heydt]
Oldest well documented age at death was 122 and about 4 months (I
could look up the exact number of days).-a It was a woman in
France.
Jeanne Calment.
Not only was she the world's oldest person, but her financial
arrangements turned out fairly amazing; from Wikipedia:
"In 1965, aged 90 and with no heirs left, Calment signed a life estate contract on her apartment with civil law notary Andr|--Fran|oois Raffray, selling the property in exchange for a right of occupancy and a monthly revenue of 2,500 francs (re4380) until her death. Raffray died on 25 December 1995, by which time Calment had received more than double the apartment's value from him, and his family had to continue making
payments. She commented on the situation by saying, "in life, one
sometimes makes bad deals". In 1985, she moved into a nursing home,
having lived on her own until the age of 110."
But nonetheless, Raffray's family still had to continue paying the 2,500 francs each month for another ten years.
As Calment said of Raffray, "In life, one sometimes makes bad deals."
On 7/27/26 02:24, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
Oldest well documented age at death was 122 and about 4 months (I
could look up the exact number of days).-a It was a woman in
France.
Jeanne Calment.
Not only was she the world's oldest person, but her financial
arrangements turned out fairly amazing; from Wikipedia:
"In 1965, aged 90 and with no heirs left, Calment signed a life estate contract on her apartment with civil law notary Andr|--Fran|oois Raffray, selling the property in exchange for a right of occupancy and a monthly revenue of 2,500 francs (re4380) until her death. Raffray died on 25 December 1995, by which time Calment had received more than double the apartment's value from him, and his family had to continue making
payments. She commented on the situation by saying, "in life, one
sometimes makes bad deals". In 1985, she moved into a nursing home,
having lived on her own until the age of 110."
But nonetheless, Raffray's family still had to continue paying the 2,500 francs each month for another ten years. [...]
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 23:17:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 10:55:40 -0400, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
(To be more precise, potatoes are edible unless they are green or
sprouting.)
From what I gather, potatoes can turn toxic even without visible
evidence of green colour or sprouting.
From what I have experienced, this is true. I was lucky to survive.
Back in the 90s, there was a similar situation in NYC, in which HIV
sufferers 'sold' their condos to investors, with the stipulations
that they had free occupancy until they died.
In a lot of cases, HIV treatments were developed that greatly
extended the occupant's lives, to the consternation of the
investors.
The thing that really shocked everyone was when they found Jesus's
birth certificate, and the date said 4 BC.
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 05:38:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 02:20:55 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
There was indeed no year 0.
Astronomers number the years to include a year 0.
DoesnrCOt mean there was a year 0. Just as numbering the year after
that as rCLyear 1rCY doesnrCOt mean there actually was a rCLyear 1rCY.
But there was a year that is numbered 1.
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 13:06:41 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
Back in the 90s, there was a similar situation in NYC, in which HIV
sufferers 'sold' their condos to investors, with the stipulations
that they had free occupancy until they died.
In a lot of cases, HIV treatments were developed that greatly
extended the occupant's lives, to the consternation of the
investors.
Only in the USA, it seems, could you set up successful businesses that
profit off sickness.
Something similar happened when COVID-19 broke out -- a whole bunch of--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
?? medical personnel found themselves laid off, without a job. And this
at a time when, you would think, they would be needed more than ever.
How come? Because the businesses they were working for were set up on
the basis of making lots of money from elective surgeries. And much of
the market for that disappeared in the face of more urgent priorities.
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 20:36:35 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
The thing that really shocked everyone was when they found Jesus's
birth certificate, and the date said 4 BC.
Not only that, the Roman Census that his parents went back to
Bethlehem for didnrCOt happen until 7 AD.
That just proves how rCLmiraculousrCY religion is, doesnrCOt it ...
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 12:52:59 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:<snip>
But there was a year that is numbered 1.
Nobody at the time said othis is year 1o.
How about life and health insurance companies?
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 20:13:23 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
How about life and health insurance companies?
Exhibit A: a certain murder trial going on in the US, where there is >remarkably widespread sympathy among the general public for a man who
has pretty much admitted killing a health-insurance company executive
in cold blood.
Only in the USA, it seems, could you set up successful businesses that
profit off sickness.
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 12:52:59 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 05:38:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 02:20:55 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
There was indeed no year 0.
Astronomers number the years to include a year 0.
Doesn't mean there was a year 0. Just as numbering the year after
that as "year 1" doesn't mean there actually was a "year 1".
But there was a year that is numbered 1.
Nobody at the time said "this is year 1".
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 12:52:59 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 05:38:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 02:20:55 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
There was indeed no year 0.
Astronomers number the years to include a year 0.
Doesn't mean there was a year 0. Just as numbering the year after
that as "year 1" doesn't mean there actually was a "year 1".
But there was a year that is numbered 1.
Nobody at the time said "this is year 1".
But they said so, at some other time, in France.
IIRC they didn't know it until it was over,
but they lived while year II was decreed to have started,
On 28/07/26 09:28, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 20:36:35 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
The thing that really shocked everyone was when they found Jesus's
birth certificate, and the date said 4 BC.
Not only that, the Roman Census that his parents went back to
Bethlehem for didn't happen until 7 AD.
That just proves how "miraculous" religion is, doesn't it ...
It's entirely possible that there were two different prophets, whose
stories were merged in the oral tradition. Cross-contamination of
stories has been common enough in the past.
One of the two might even have been called Brian.
How about life and health insurance companies?
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 20:13:23 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
How about life and health insurance companies?
Health insurance desn't really exist in most of the world in the sense that >it does in the US. There are some for-profit insurance companies elsewhere >that basically insure against high-risk, low-probability events, or which >provide coverage to travellers going to a country where they may not be able >to use the local healthcare. But profit margins are nothing like they are
in the US.
Life insurance is a different matter, altogether.
--scott
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 20:13:23 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
How about life and health insurance companies?
Health insurance desn't really exist in most of the world in the sense that it does in the US.
There are some for-profit insurance companies elsewhere that basically insure against high-risk, low-probability events, or which provide coverage to travellers going to a country where they may not be able to use the local healthcare. But profit margins are nothing like they are in the US.
Life insurance is a different matter, altogether.--
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Nobody at the time said "this is year 1".
But they said so, at some other time, in France.
Not only that, the Roman Census that his parents went back to
Bethlehem for didn't happen until 7 AD.
On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 20:13:23 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
How about life and health insurance companies?
Health insurance desn't really exist in most of the world in the sense that >it does in the US. There are some for-profit insurance companies elsewhere >that basically insure against high-risk, low-probability events, or which >provide coverage to travellers going to a country where they may not be able >to use the local healthcare. But profit margins are nothing like they are
in the US.
Life insurance is a different matter, altogether.
For that matter, countries in which the years are numbered based on who
is the ruler will have several "Year 1"s.
For example, in Japan the Heisei Era year 1 is Gregorian year 1989.
(And how do I know this? Because Japanese kaiju films are often
described by the era in which they were made.)
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) posted:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 07:38:18 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:
That the press could control the government, or at least the
electoral process, as per Stead, is not implausible. Here in
Washington we just had a Democratic primary where seven candidates
were up for mayor. The press exerted its power simply by ignoring
five of them.
Surely there's nothing stopping you from setting up your own media channel to publicize the "facts" that you feel the other channels are ignoring.
Isn't that what "freedom of the press" is supposed to be about?
'Freedom of the press' is that long ago that most Americans have
forgotten what it was like.
There is a World Press Freedom Index (WPFI) that keeps track of how bad
it is, really.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index>
The USA is down somewhere in the middle, barely ahead of the really
nasty counties. (and going down over the years)
If Trump gets his way that great chunk of dark blue at the top of the map will
disappear.
Fortunately, some European newspapers
(such as the British Guardian, or the Dutch NRC)
are protected with redactional statutes
that make it nearly impossible for owners
to interfere with the independence of the editors.
There is no way that Trump or his cronies can do anything about that,
In article <1ryz6pb.k895kv1luko14N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>,
J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
Fortunately, some European newspapers
(such as the British Guardian, or the Dutch NRC)
are protected with redactional statutes
that make it nearly impossible for owners
to interfere with the independence of the editors.
There is no way that Trump or his cronies can do anything about that,
Unless he contrives to sue them out of existence.
On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 08:10:07 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
Life insurance is a different matter, altogether.
Not so very different. There were mutual insurance societies,
cooperatives run by their members, but now there are more companies,
with external shareholders. Many of the mutual ones changed in the
1980s, again under the influence of the Reagan-Thatcher neoliberalism.
In article <1ryz6pb.k895kv1luko14N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>,
J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
Fortunately, some European newspapers
(such as the British Guardian, or the Dutch NRC)
are protected with redactional statutes
that make it nearly impossible for owners
to interfere with the independence of the editors.
There is no way that Trump or his cronies can do anything about that,
Unless he contrives to sue them out of existence.
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
It's entirely possible that there were two different prophets,
whose stories were merged in the oral tradition.
Cross-contamination of stories has been common enough in the past.
One of the two might even have been called Brian.
It is also quite possible that there were none,
Both that story and the one in Matthew are most naturally
interpreted as explanations of how Jesus could be born in Bethlehem
(as required by scripture) when he was already known as Jesus of
Nazareth.
Oh, there were lots of prophets, all right. Some of them were likely
even named rCLJoshuarCY.
Remember, the followers are only going to remember the successful
ones.
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <1ryz6pb.k895kv1luko14N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>,
J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
Fortunately, some European newspapers
(such as the British Guardian, or the Dutch NRC)
are protected with redactional statutes
that make it nearly impossible for owners
to interfere with the independence of the editors.
There is no way that Trump or his cronies can do anything about that,
Unless he contrives to sue them out of existence.
He would need to go through British or Belgian courts for that,
I guess. [1]
They wouldn't go along, I guess again,
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Oh, there were lots of prophets, all right. Some of them were likely
even named rCLJoshuarCY.
Anybody can prophecy. I do it it all the time.
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 08:10:07 -0400 (EDT), kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
Life insurance is a different matter, altogether.
Not so very different. There were mutual insurance societies,
cooperatives run by their members, but now there are more companies,
with external shareholders. Many of the mutual ones changed in the
1980s, again under the influence of the Reagan-Thatcher neoliberalism.
Life insurance is different in that everybody is going to get one and only >one payout, but everyone gets a payout. So the bet is only on how long a >person is going to live.
Because of this a lot of life insurance companies have started making >derivative securities and things like annuities because the customer
base for their primary product is limited.
US Health insurance started out life as just that... insurance against >sickness or injury,
but it expanded into preventative care which turns
it into something very different. It's no longer insurance in the sense
that fire or burglary insurance is.
Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the Dutch newspaper NRC
Handelsblad, claiming defamation over an article that he alleges misrepresented his actions and statements. The lawsuit seeks damages
for harming his reputation and is part of his broader pattern of legal actions against media outlets.
That's not always the case. My wife and have 20-year whole life
policies for $5,000 each with Metropolitan Insurance company that we >purchased in 1964. We no longer pay premiums and haven't since 1984.
The death benefits are now about $25,000 each, and we receive
quarterly dividends. The amount has changed over the years, but it's >currently about $31.00 each.
[Hal Heydt]
On another take... I received a letter today from an insurance
company offering life insurance to my wife. Problem? She*died*
exactly 49 months ago. You'd think they'd do at least minimal
due diligence...
On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 23:34:03 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <1ryz6pb.k895kv1luko14N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>,
J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
Fortunately, some European newspapers
(such as the British Guardian, or the Dutch NRC)
are protected with redactional statutes
that make it nearly impossible for owners
to interfere with the independence of the editors.
There is no way that Trump or his cronies can do anything about that,
Unless he contrives to sue them out of existence.
He would need to go through British or Belgian courts for that,
I guess. [1]
They wouldn't go along, I guess again,
But Trump did sue the BBC. The case was filed in Florida.8d0ce74442
https://apnews.com/article/trump-bbc-lawsuit-defamation-a9fd196c4f242decd8f28e
The suit was withdrawn with plans to re-submit in a different form.42000502.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/donald-trump-backtracks-10b-bbc-1
Trump also sued the Guardian, filing in Florida, but
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/13/trump-media-guardian-lawsuit but that case was dropped.
According to "Search Assist", Trump also sued the NRC Handelsblad
newspaper for defamation, but I can't find a corraborating article:
Search Assist
commons.wikimedia.org
Daniel Torok / Public domain
Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the Dutch newspaper NRC
Handelsblad, claiming defamation over an article that he alleges misrepresented his actions and statements. The lawsuit seeks damages
for harming his reputation and is part of his broader pattern of legal actions against media outlets.
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 23:34:03 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.8d0ce74442
Lodder) wrote:
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <1ryz6pb.k895kv1luko14N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>,
J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
Fortunately, some European newspapers
(such as the British Guardian, or the Dutch NRC)
are protected with redactional statutes
that make it nearly impossible for owners
to interfere with the independence of the editors.
There is no way that Trump or his cronies can do anything about that,
Unless he contrives to sue them out of existence.
He would need to go through British or Belgian courts for that,
I guess. [1]
They wouldn't go along, I guess again,
But Trump did sue the BBC. The case was filed in Florida.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-bbc-lawsuit-defamation-a9fd196c4f242decd8f28e
42000502.html
The suit was withdrawn with plans to re-submit in a different form.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/donald-trump-backtracks-10b-bbc-1
Trump also sued the Guardian, filing in Florida, but
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/13/trump-media-guardian-lawsuit >> but that case was dropped.
According to "Search Assist", Trump also sued the NRC Handelsblad
newspaper for defamation, but I can't find a corraborating article:
Search Assist
commons.wikimedia.org
Daniel Torok / Public domain
Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the Dutch newspaper NRC
Handelsblad, claiming defamation over an article that he alleges
misrepresented his actions and statements. The lawsuit seeks damages
for harming his reputation and is part of his broader pattern of legal
actions against media outlets.
The Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad no longer exists,
it is just NRC nowadays. [1]
They have informal collaborations with English-language newspapers,
such as the New York Times and the Guardian.
They also republish selected pieces from the Economist.
So it is not surprising that they irked him.
If I am not mistaken damages assigned by an American court
are not collectible in the Netherlands,
On another take... I received a letter today from an insurance
company offering life insurance to my wife. Problem? She *died*
exactly 49 months ago. You'd think they'd do at least minimal
due diligence...
begin fnord
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
On another take... I received a letter today from an insurance
company offering life insurance to my wife. Problem? She *died*
exactly 49 months ago. You'd think they'd do at least minimal
due diligence...
The AARP seems to finally have stopped trying to get my mother to join.
I don't see why, she's only been dead for ten years.
begin fnord
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
On another take... I received a letter today from an insurance
company offering life insurance to my wife. Problem? She *died*
exactly 49 months ago. You'd think they'd do at least minimal
due diligence...
The AARP seems to finally have stopped trying to get my mother to join.
I don't see why, she's only been dead for ten years.
In article <otei6lt3g4is8ocls3sm9uqfi3aet5hvgb@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
That's not always the case. My wife and have 20-year whole life
policies for $5,000 each with Metropolitan Insurance company that we >>purchased in 1964. We no longer pay premiums and haven't since 1984.
The death benefits are now about $25,000 each, and we receive
quarterly dividends. The amount has changed over the years, but it's >>currently about $31.00 each.
[Hal Heydt]
On another take... I received a letter today from an insurance
company offering life insurance to my wife. Problem? She *died*
exactly 49 months ago. You'd think they'd do at least minimal
due diligence...
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
That's not always the case. My wife and have 20-year whole life
policies for $5,000 each with Metropolitan Insurance company that
we purchased in 1964. We no longer pay premiums and haven't since
1984. The death benefits are now about $25,000 each, and we
receive quarterly dividends. The amount has changed over the
years, but it's currently about $31.00 each.
Yes, this is what I mean by branching out into other investments.
This is not traditional life insurance but it's a good thing.
[Hal Heydt]
On another take... I received a letter today from an insurance
company offering life insurance to my wife. Problem? She *died*
exactly 49 months ago. You'd think they'd do at least minimal due
diligence...
You should definitely apply immediately.
No, Tony is describing a typical Whole Life policy. It never expires.
The customer may or may not keep paying a fixed amount for life, or
only until age 65 or whenever, depending on the policy. Some of them >eventually pay dividends, especially if the payments are invested into
a stock portfolio that does well.
Anyhow, the fine print of most life insurance policies, whether whole
or term, automatically exclude anyone who is dead within six months of
when the contract is signed. And some also require a physical exam.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
That's not always the case. My wife and have 20-year whole life
policies for $5,000 each with Metropolitan Insurance company that
we purchased in 1964. We no longer pay premiums and haven't since
1984. The death benefits are now about $25,000 each, and we
receive quarterly dividends. The amount has changed over the
years, but it's currently about $31.00 each.
Yes, this is what I mean by branching out into other investments.
This is not traditional life insurance but it's a good thing.
No, Tony is describing a typical Whole Life policy. It never expires.
The customer may or may not keep paying a fixed amount for life, or
only until age 65 or whenever, depending on the policy. Some of them >eventually pay dividends, especially if the payments are invested into
a stock portfolio that does well.
As contrasted with a Term Life policy, which expires, leaving you with >nothing, at the end of the term. But the payments tend to be a lot
less. It's most useful for people with minor children, to fund their >education until they're self-supporting if the parents die young.
Anyhow, the fine print of most life insurance policies, whether whole
or term, automatically exclude anyone who is dead within six months of
when the contract is signed. And some also require a physical exam.
Anyhow, the fine print of most life insurance policies, whether whole
or term, automatically exclude anyone who is dead within six months of
when the contract is signed. And some also require a physical exam.
In article <114drop$ftl$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Anyhow, the fine print of most life insurance policies, whether whole
or term, automatically exclude anyone who is dead within six months of
when the contract is signed. And some also require a physical exam.
[Hal Heydt]
The problem would be the signing. Death within six months of
start date wouldn't, since she died over 4 years ago.
The problem would be the signing. Death within six months of start
date wouldn't, since she died over 4 years ago.
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
The problem would be the signing. Death within six months of start
date wouldn't, since she died over 4 years ago.
I assume it's phrased so that if she's dead at that time, it's not
valid. Insurance companies can afford the best lawyers. And if there
are any ambiguities in the contracts, some previous client has almost >certinly already found them, causing it to have long since been
corrected.
This is clearly a case of a biased jury, your honor. There is
no way my client can receive a fair trial. My client, you must
understand, is dead and every single one of the jury members
selected is still living.
Of course these days trials are always of the living, since this
isn't the age of the posthumous trial of Pope Formosus.
I think he'd be proud of me.
P.S. He got excused.
On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 03:57:03 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
There was one story in Stanislaw LemrCOs collection rCLThe CyberiadrCY about a character who was so villainous, he was regularly recreated only to
be tortured to death again -- one death sentence wasnrCOt deemed enough
for him.
On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 03:57:03 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Of course these days trials are always of the living, since this
isn't the age of the posthumous trial of Pope Formosus.
There was one story in Stanislaw LemrCOs collection rCLThe CyberiadrCY about a character who was so villainous, he was regularly recreated only to
be tortured to death again -- one death sentence wasnrCOt deemed enough
for him.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
This is clearly a case of a biased jury, your honor. There is
no way my client can receive a fair trial. My client, you must
understand, is dead and every single one of the jury members
selected is still living.
"Indeed, he should have had a jury of his peers. And where could the
court have dug up a dozen dead people? Oh, right."
Of course these days trials are always of the living, since this--
isn't the age of the posthumous trial of Pope Formosus. Or of Oliver Cromwell. (Cromwell's corpse was beheaded, and hiw victim Charles I's
corpse had its head sewn back on. Cromwell's head was displayed in
various places, and was reburied more than three centuries later.)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Of course these days trials are always of the living, since this
isn't the age of the posthumous trial of Pope Formosus.
There was one story in Stanislaw LemrCOs collection rCLThe CyberiadrCY
about a character who was so villainous, he was regularly recreated
only to be tortured to death again -- one death sentence wasnrCOt
deemed enough for him.
I would have sworn that I read a story like that in Asimov's many
years ago, where they were resurrecting Hitler (I think) so they
could execute him again, once for each victim.
Le 30/07/2026 |a 05:39, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro a |-crit :
On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 03:57:03 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
There was one story in Stanislaw LemrCOs collection rCLThe CyberiadrCY about >> a character who was so villainous, he was regularly recreated only to
be tortured to death again -- one death sentence wasnrCOt deemed enough
for him.
I recall a documentary by Michael Portillo (he of the jazzy jackets)
about the death penalty. He tried to find the most humane way of killing >someone and (this from memory) found that breathing an inert gas led to >unconsciousness and death without distress. He advanced this as an >alternative to the flawed methods in use in the USA (electrocution,
lethal injectionrCa), but found no takers. It seemed the public wanted its >criminals to suffer.
If it is going to be used, the method should reflect the reason for
doing so. If the intent is to deter others from committing the same
crime, then the execution should be public and painful. If the
intent is to avoid any chance of the criminal from ever having a
chance to do more crimes (the "mad dog" situation), then the
execution should be private and as pain free as possible. If the
reason is to exact revenge, then the execution should be private,
painful, and messy.
[Hal Heydt]
I think capital puhishment is a bad idea. However...
If it is going to be used, the method should reflect the reason for
doing so. If the intent is to deter others from committing the same
crime, then the execution should be public and painful.
If the intent is to avoid any chance of the criminal from ever
having a chance to do more crimes (the "mad dog" situation), then
the execution should be private and as pain free as possible.
If the reason is to exact revenge, then the execution should
be private, painful, and messy.
I think that pretty much covers the reasons for capital punishment.
[Hal Heydt]
I think capital puhishment is a bad idea. However...
On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 19:20:12 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
If it is going to be used, the method should reflect the reason for
doing so. If the intent is to deter others from committing the same
crime, then the execution should be public and painful. If the
intent is to avoid any chance of the criminal from ever having a
chance to do more crimes (the "mad dog" situation), then the
execution should be private and as pain free as possible. If the
reason is to exact revenge, then the execution should be private,
painful, and messy.
At one time, they used to hang pickpockets. It didnrCOt seem to be much
of a deterrent to others committing the same crime.
If a legal penalty doesnrCOt have a deterrent effect, then what point
does it have?
On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 19:20:12 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
If it is going to be used, the method should reflect the reason for
doing so. If the intent is to deter others from committing the same
crime, then the execution should be public and painful. If the
intent is to avoid any chance of the criminal from ever having a
chance to do more crimes (the "mad dog" situation), then the
execution should be private and as pain free as possible. If the
reason is to exact revenge, then the execution should be private,
painful, and messy.
At one time, they used to hang pickpockets. It didnrCOt seem to be much
of a deterrent to others committing the same crime.
If a legal penalty doesnrCOt have a deterrent effect, then what point--
does it have?
At one time, they used to hang pickpockets. It didnrCOt seem to be much
of a deterrent to others committing the same crime.
If a legal penalty doesnrCOt have a deterrent effect, then what point
does it have?
On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 19:20:12 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
If it is going to be used, the method should reflect the reason for
doing so. If the intent is to deter others from committing the same
crime, then the execution should be public and painful. If the
intent is to avoid any chance of the criminal from ever having a
chance to do more crimes (the "mad dog" situation), then the
execution should be private and as pain free as possible. If the
reason is to exact revenge, then the execution should be private,
painful, and messy.
At one time, they used to hang pickpockets. It didnrCOt seem to be much
of a deterrent to others committing the same crime.
If a legal penalty doesnrCOt have a deterrent effect, then what point
does it have?
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
At one time, they used to hang pickpockets. It didnrCOt seem to be much
of a deterrent to others committing the same crime.
If a legal penalty doesnrCOt have a deterrent effect, then what point
does it have?
In the case of the death penalty, it definitely prevents that person from >reoffending. It may not deter others, but it definitely stops the original >offender.
In the case of the death penalty, it definitely prevents that person
from reoffending. It may not deter others, but it definitely stops
the original offender.
On 31/07/26 12:03, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In the case of the death penalty, it definitely prevents that person
from reoffending.-a It may not deter others, but it definitely stops
the original offender.
It also stops the courts being clogged up with appeals, when new
evidence shows that the convicted person was innocent.
Overall, I think it's a good thing that all civilised countries have now abolished the death penalty. However, I have some sympathy for
reintroducing it for internet scammers, telemarketers, and people who
deal in cryptocurrency.
If it is going to be used, the method should reflect the reason
for doing so. If the intent is to deter others from committing
the same crime, then the execution should be public and painful.
If the intent is to avoid any chance of the criminal from ever
having a chance to do more crimes (the "mad dog" situation), then
the execution should be private and as pain free as possible. If
the reason is to exact revenge, then the execution should be
private, painful, and messy.
I think that pretty much covers the reasons for capital
punishment.
At one time, they used to hang pickpockets. It didnrCOt seem to be much
of a deterrent to others committing the same crime.
You've forgotten the Darwin reason: prevent the perpetrator fropm
having children.
Overall, I think it's a good thing that all civilised countries have now abolished the death penalty. However, I have some sympathy for
reintroducing it for internet scammers, telemarketers, and people who
deal in cryptocurrency.
The number one reason for capital punishment in the US is to coerce
people into pleading guilty in return for a life sentence. In most
cases, prosecutors don't actually want to execute anyone. They just
want them to plead guilty, to avoid the risk that the prosecutors
will lose at trial.
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
The problem would be the signing. Death within six months of start
date wouldn't, since she died over 4 years ago.
I assume it's phrased so that if she's dead at that time, it's not
valid. Insurance companies can afford the best lawyers. And if there
are any ambiguities in the contracts, some previous client has almost >certinly already found them, causing it to have long since been
corrected.
This is clearly a case of a biased jury, your honor. There is no way my client can receive a fair trial. My client, you must understand, is dead
and every single one of the jury members selected is still living.
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
At one time, they used to hang pickpockets. It didnrCOt seem to be much
of a deterrent to others committing the same crime.
If a legal penalty doesnrCOt have a deterrent effect, then what point
does it have?
In the case of the death penalty, it definitely prevents that person from reoffending. It may not deter others, but it definitely stops the original offender.
--scott
Le 31/07/2026 |a 07:46, Peter Moylan a |-crit :
On 31/07/26 12:03, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In the case of the death penalty, it definitely prevents that person
from reoffending.-a It may not deter others, but it definitely stops
the original offender.
It also stops the courts being clogged up with appeals, when new
evidence shows that the convicted person was innocent.
Overall, I think it's a good thing that all civilised countries have now
abolished the death penalty. However, I have some sympathy for
reintroducing it for internet scammers, telemarketers, and people who
deal in cryptocurrency.
Arsonists too, perhaps, especially if they're also firemen. Scammers, certainly. As I recall, the Lilliputians considered fraud a worse crime
than theft, because it exploited the trust that is needed for society to function.
In the case of the death penalty, it definitely prevents that person from
reoffending.-a It may not deter others, but it definitely stops the
original
offender.
--scott
So does a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
...and that's often cheaper than the massive legal machinery that a
death sentence activates in the US.
On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 22:15:45 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
The number one reason for capital punishment in the US is to coerce
people into pleading guilty in return for a life sentence. In most
cases, prosecutors don't actually want to execute anyone. They just
want them to plead guilty, to avoid the risk that the prosecutors
will lose at trial.
Plea bargaining is commonly seen as something that corrupts the
justice system.
Den 31.07.2026 kl. 19.03 skrev Cryptoengineer:
In the case of the death penalty, it definitely prevents that person
from
reoffending.-a It may not deter others, but it definitely stops the
original
offender.
--scott
So does a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
...and that's often cheaper than the massive legal machinery that a
death sentence activates in the US.
https://latestcost.com/cost-keeping-prisoner-u-s-facilities/
The average is $40'000. If a muderer is jailed at the age of 25 and
lives to be 75 the total will be $2'000'000. What's the going rate on
the street for killing a person?
Den 31.07.2026 kl. 08.46 skrev Peter Moylan:
Overall, I think it's a good thing that all civilised countries have now
abolished the death penalty. However, I have some sympathy for
reintroducing it for internet scammers, telemarketers, and people who
deal in cryptocurrency.
Add the people who have scores of computers set up to make deals on the stock market every microsecond.
Den 31.07.2026 kl. 22.29 skrev Anders D. Nygaard:
Add the people who have scores of computers set up to make deals on
the stock market every microsecond.
I do not understand why stock markets permit this kind of trading.
Neither do I. According to Preben Wilhjelm the Saxo Bank every day has
more money passing through than our BNP, and none of the money do
anything useful.
Why not impose a series of (say) half-hour slots, where each trader
is only permitted to act at most once per slot?
Good idea. Now we're at it we could also forbid trading with quota.
On 7/31/2026 9:27 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 31.07.2026 kl. 08.46 skrev Peter Moylan:
Overall, I think it's a good thing that all civilised countries
have now abolished the death penalty. However, I have some
sympathy for reintroducing it for internet scammers,
telemarketers, and people who deal in cryptocurrency.
Add the people who have scores of computers set up to make deals on
the stock market every microsecond.
I do not understand why stock markets permit this kind of trading.
Why not impose a series of (say) half-hour slots, where each trader
is only permitted to act at most once per slot?
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Add the people who have scores of computers set up to make deals on
the stock market every microsecond.
I do not understand why stock markets permit this kind of trading.
Neither do I. According to Preben Wilhjelm the Saxo Bank every day
has more money passing through than our BNP, and none of the money
do anything useful.
I don't understand the objection.
The people making the trades are individuals who make their living
(or try to) by stock trades. What detrimental effect does that have
on anyone else?
Back then they didn't have the concept of zero. But maybe that was
the crisis: hey, year zero has gone missing.
The thing that really shocked everyone was when they found Jesus's
birth certificate, and the date said 4 BC.
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
Back then they didn't have the concept of zero. But maybe that was
the crisis: hey, year zero has gone missing.
They couldn't notice that it was missing if they didn't have the concept.
And indeed they did not. Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the 7th century. (And to think that some people claim that India discovered nothing!)
The thing that really shocked everyone was when they found Jesus's
birth certificate, and the date said 4 BC.
Never mind the date; who was listed as his father?
And who was listed as his godfather?
On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 23:38:38 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Den 31.07.2026 kl. 22.29 skrev Anders D. Nygaard:
Add the people who have scores of computers set up to make deals on
the stock market every microsecond.
I do not understand why stock markets permit this kind of trading.
Neither do I. According to Preben Wilhjelm the Saxo Bank every day has
more money passing through than our BNP, and none of the money do
anything useful.
Why not impose a series of (say) half-hour slots, where each trader
is only permitted to act at most once per slot?
Good idea. Now we're at it we could also forbid trading with quota.
I don't understand the objection.
The people making the trades are individuals who make their living (or
try to) by stock trades. What detrimental effect does that have on
anyone else?
What benefit, or what loss would be prevented, if the trades were
slotted into half-hour segments?
There is a benefit. Fees are charged for trades. The firm that
charges the fees surely feels the fees received are useful. The
traders who make money on the transaction, surely feel it's useful.
They also risk losing money.
Day-traders sometimes use computer programs that automatically trigger
buy or sell orders based on price points they set. (I suppose some
now use AI to set the proints.) If the individual wants to incur the
cost of equipment and software to do this, why is it a problem to
anyone else, let alone society in general?
Based on what I know, a trading quota is a good thing, not something
that should be stopped. A trading quota halts trades when they get to
the point the excessive price fluctuation.
https://trader.academy/public/blog/quota-definition-understanding-the-importance-of-quotas-in-finance-and-stock-market
On 7/31/2026 7:26 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 23:38:38 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
<rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Den 31.07.2026 kl. 22.29 skrev Anders D. Nygaard:
Add the people who have scores of computers set up to make deals on
the stock market every microsecond.
I do not understand why stock markets permit this kind of trading.
Neither do I. According to Preben Wilhjelm the Saxo Bank every day has
more money passing through than our BNP, and none of the money do
anything useful.
Why not impose a series of (say) half-hour slots, where each trader
is only permitted to act at most once per slot?
Good idea. Now we're at it we could also forbid trading with quota.
I don't understand the objection.
The people making the trades are individuals who make their living (or
try to) by stock trades.-a What detrimental effect does that have on
anyone else?
What benefit, or what loss would be prevented, if the trades were
slotted into half-hour segments?
There is a benefit.-a Fees are charged for trades.-a The firm that
charges the fees surely feels the fees received are useful.-a The
traders who make money on the transaction, surely feel it's useful.
They also risk losing money.
Day-traders sometimes use computer programs that automatically trigger
buy or sell orders based on price points they set.-a (I suppose some
now use AI to set the proints.)-a If the individual wants to incur the
cost of equipment and software to do this, why is it a problem to
anyone else, let alone society in general?
Based on what I know, a trading quota is a good thing, not something
that should be stopped.-a A trading quota halts trades when they get to
the point the excessive price fluctuation.
https://trader.academy/public/blog/quota-definition-understanding-the-
importance-of-quotas-in-finance-and-stock-market
The term you're looking for is 'high speed trading'.
There's a related game in arbitrage - taking advantage of mementary differences of commodity prices in different markets to profit
from trading contracts - buy in the low market while selling in
the high one.
One example is the Chicago Board of Trade and the NT commodity
markets.
A fiber link has a round-trip latency of about 14.1 ms. One
company installed a microwave relay, with a latency of only
8.2 ms, and put the trading computers at the halfway point.
They make steady profits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_Networks
pt
On 7/31/26 19:53, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
Back then they didn't have the concept of zero. But maybe that
was the crisis: hey, year zero has gone missing.
They couldn't notice that it was missing if they didn't have the
concept.
And indeed they did not. Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the
7th century. (And to think that some people claim that India
discovered nothing!)
The thing that really shocked everyone was when they found
Jesus's birth certificate, and the date said 4 BC.
Never mind the date; who was listed as his father?
And who was listed as his godfather?
I always found it peculiar that the gospels of Matthew and Luke spent
so much time listing Joseph's lineage, when he supposedly wasn't
related to Jesus at all.
And that they disagreed on it.
On 7/30/2026 10:03 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:<snip>
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
In the case of the death penalty, it definitely prevents that person from
reoffending. It may not deter others, but it definitely stops the original >> offender.
--scott
So does a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
...and allows the possibility of partial restitution if a false
conviction is later proved.
On 7/31/2026 9:27 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Den 31.07.2026 kl. 08.46 skrev Peter Moylan:
Overall, I think it's a good thing that all civilised countries have now >>> abolished the death penalty. However, I have some sympathy for
reintroducing it for internet scammers, telemarketers, and people who
deal in cryptocurrency.
Add the people who have scores of computers set up to make deals on the
stock market every microsecond.
I do not understand why stock markets permit this kind of trading.
Why not impose a series of (say) half-hour slots, where each trader
is only permitted to act at most once per slot?
/Anders, Denmark\
Add the people who have scores of computers set up to make deals on
the stock market every microsecond.
I do not understand why stock markets permit this kind of trading.
Neither do I. According to Preben Wilhjelm the Saxo Bank every day has
more money passing through than our BNP, and none of the money do
anything useful.
Why not impose a series of (say) half-hour slots, where each trader
is only permitted to act at most once per slot?
Good idea. Now we're at it we could also forbid trading with quota.
I don't understand the objection.
The people making the trades are individuals who make their living (or
try to) by stock trades. What detrimental effect does that have on
anyone else?
What benefit, or what loss would be prevented, if the trades were
slotted into half-hour segments?
There is a benefit. Fees are charged for trades. The firm that
charges the fees surely feels the fees received are useful. The
traders who make money on the transaction, surely feel it's useful.
They also risk losing money.
Day-traders sometimes use computer programs that automatically trigger
buy or sell orders based on price points they set. (I suppose some
now use AI to set the proints.) If the individual wants to incur the
cost of equipment and software to do this, why is it a problem to
anyone else, let alone society in general?
Based on what I know, a trading quota is a good thing,
"Microsecond" is a great exaggeration. It takes about 67 milliseconds
just to get a signal from one side of the planet to the other. For
instance from Madrid to Wellington or vice versa -- those two cities
being almost directly opposite each other.
The rule here used to be that share prices over the internet were always twenty minutes out of date. This was to prevent unstable feedback. I
don't know whether they still do it.
<snip>
...and allows the possibility of partial restitution if a false
conviction is later proved.
But I definitely agree with this point.
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
Back then they didn't have the concept of zero. But maybe that was the
crisis: hey, year zero has gone missing.
They couldn't notice that it was missing if they didn't have the
concept.
And indeed they did not. Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the 7th century. (And to think that some people claim that India discovered nothing!)
The thing that really shocked everyone was when they found Jesus's
birth certificate, and the date said 4 BC.
Never mind the date; who was listed as his father?
And who was listed as his godfather?
On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 23:53:42 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
Back then they didn't have the concept of zero. But maybe that was
the crisis: hey, year zero has gone missing.
They couldn't notice that it was missing if they didn't have the
concept.
And indeed they did not. Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the 7th
century. (And to think that some people claim that India discovered
nothing!)
The thing that really shocked everyone was when they found Jesus's
birth certificate, and the date said 4 BC.
Never mind the date; who was listed as his father?
According to Allen Ginsberg, "the cat who really laid it on us"
And who was listed as his godfather?
I always found it peculiar that the gospels of Matthew and Luke spent
so much time listing Joseph's lineage, when he supposedly wasn't
related to Jesus at all.
"Genetic father" wasn't a thing back then. "Legal father" was probably sufficient to satisfy the prophecies.
And that they disagreed on it.
Descent through two distinct lines isn't so unusual. And David probably
had so many descendants that most of the country was related to him.
Assuming that David existed. What's the current state of evidence?
Den 01.08.2026 kl. 06.56 skrev Someone Else:
-a <snip>
...and allows the possibility of partial restitution if a false
conviction is later proved.
But I definitely agree with this point.
So do I. I was not defending having death penalty. I was merely
interested in the financial argument.
I've read the 50% of the death row prisoners in USA who had their case retried based on DNA testing were found to be innocent.
On 7/31/26 21:13, Peter Moylan wrote:
I always found it peculiar that the gospels of Matthew and Luke spent
so much time listing Joseph's lineage, when he supposedly wasn't
related to Jesus at all.
"Genetic father" wasn't a thing back then. "Legal father" was probably
sufficient to satisfy the prophecies.
And that they disagreed on it.
Descent through two distinct lines isn't so unusual. And David probably
had so many descendants that most of the country was related to him.
Assuming that David existed. What's the current state of evidence?
The number of descendants of David doesn't enter into it: Matthew says
that JosephrCOs father was Jacob (Matthew 1:16), but Luke says Joseph's father was Heli (Luke 3:23).
(There are other contradictions, but that is the most obvious one.)--
The number of descendants of David doesn't enter into it: Matthew
says that Joseph_s father was Jacob (Matthew 1:16), but Luke says
Joseph's father was Heli (Luke 3:23).
Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
I've read the 50% of the death row prisoners in USA who had their
case retried based on DNA testing were found to be innocent.
But the set of death row prisoners in USA who had their case retried
based on DNA testing is not a representative sample of the set of
death row prisoners in USA. It would be heavily weighted towards
those who were in fact innocent and who therefore thought that
retrying the case with DNA evidence would should prove that.
Assuming that David existed. What's the current state of evidence?
Den 01.08.2026 kl. 01.26 skrev Tony Cooper:
Add the people who have scores of computers set up to make deals on
the stock market every microsecond.
I do not understand why stock markets permit this kind of trading.
Neither do I. According to Preben Wilhjelm the Saxo Bank every day has
more money passing through than our BNP, and none of the money do
anything useful.
Why not impose a series of (say) half-hour slots, where each trader
is only permitted to act at most once per slot?
Good idea. Now we're at it we could also forbid trading with quota.
I don't understand the objection.
The people making the trades are individuals who make their living (or
try to) by stock trades. What detrimental effect does that have on
anyone else?
Lack of money for those who lose in the deal.
But my main point is that
the money do not work. They just circle around - except of course as you >point out that some people earn their living through servicing the market.
If you buy shares in a new company, your money will help the company
grow and be more efficient. If you buy 'old' shares, it won't help the >company in the production.
What benefit, or what loss would be prevented, if the trades were
slotted into half-hour segments?
The problem with the microdeals is that such algorithms register if a
buy order has been placed on some shares and then the computer buys such >shares driving the price up. Next they sell the shares to the buyer at
the increased price. The only 'work' they do is increase the price for >anyone else.
On 7/31/2026 9:27 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Add the people who have scores of computers set up to make deals on the
stock market every microsecond.
I do not understand why stock markets permit this kind of trading.
Why not impose a series of (say) half-hour slots, where each trader
is only permitted to act at most once per slot?
"Microsecond" is a great exaggeration. It takes about 67 milliseconds
just to get a signal from one side of the planet to the other. For
instance from Madrid to Wellington or vice versa -- those two cities
being almost directly opposite each other.
And even if there were something objectionable about rapid stock
trading, I certainly don't think it warrants the death penalty.
"THis Thing of Darkness" by Harry Bingham is a Fiona Griffiths
mystery story that includes sabotage of an undersea cable,
intended to give the villains a fraction of a second advantage
in the markets.
The book includes arguments about high-speed trading, which
I can't say I remmeber.
In article <114kis8$3gtbe$1@dont-email.me>,
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) wrote:
The number of descendants of David doesn't enter into it: Matthew
says that Joseph_s father was Jacob (Matthew 1:16), but Luke says
Joseph's father was Heli (Luke 3:23).
Maybe he was in trouble with the law and was using an alias.
Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) wrote:
The number of descendants of David doesn't enter into it: Matthew
says that Joseph_s father was Jacob (Matthew 1:16), but Luke says
Joseph's father was Heli (Luke 3:23).
Maybe he was in trouble with the law and was using an alias.
You mean like Saul?
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) wrote:
The number of descendants of David doesn't enter into it: Matthew
says that Joseph_s father was Jacob (Matthew 1:16), but Luke says
Joseph's father was Heli (Luke 3:23).
Maybe he was in trouble with the law and was using an alias.
You mean like Saul?
Or like nearly every pope?
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
Maybe he was in trouble with the law and was using an alias.
You mean like Saul?
Or like nearly every pope?
Or Edward VII and George VI?
(Admittedly, they had those as middle names before being crowned,
....)
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
"Microsecond" is a great exaggeration. It takes about 67
milliseconds just to get a signal from one side of the planet to
the other. For instance from Madrid to Wellington or vice versa --
those two cities being almost directly opposite each other.
Yes, this is why the high volume traders have their data centers as
close as possible to the market as they can... often within the same
block, because the propagation delay is critical. 67 milliseconds
is enough to get hundreds of trades through.
Some folks have been talking about HF radio links for high volume
trading because the latency is lower than a satellite link or a
non-direct leased line, and they have got funding and frequency
allocations but they don't seem to be doing all that well.
I would not support the death penalty for high speed trading.
Now, email spam, I might support the death penalty for that.
On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 08:08:11 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Den 01.08.2026 kl. 01.26 skrev Tony Cooper:
The people making the trades are individuals who make their
living (or try to) by stock trades. What detrimental effect does
that have on anyone else?
Lack of money for those who lose in the deal.
That hardly convinces me that the system should be changed. You
only win or lose because you play, and the players choose to play.
But my main point is that the money do not work. They just circle
around - except of course as you point out that some people earn
their living through servicing the market.
That's not any different from any other form of business. Some make
a profit on the trades and spend that money on some other business,
which, in turn, spends money on some other business. Rinse and
repeat.
I don't understand how any jury can believe such evidence, but they
often do.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
"Microsecond" is a great exaggeration. It takes about 67
milliseconds just to get a signal from one side of the planet to
the other. For instance from Madrid to Wellington or vice versa --
those two cities being almost directly opposite each other.
Yes, this is why the high volume traders have their data centers as
close as possible to the market as they can... often within the same
block, because the propagation delay is critical. 67 milliseconds
is enough to get hundreds of trades through.
Being closer to one market means you're further from another.
Some folks have been talking about HF radio links for high volume
trading because the latency is lower than a satellite link or a
non-direct leased line, and they have got funding and frequency
allocations but they don't seem to be doing all that well.
One problem with HF is the relatively low bandwidth. Another is that
it's intermittent, depending on what the sun is doing. Yet another is
that modern digital electronics tends to make lots of radio noise that
jams faint signals.
But neutrinos and gravitational waves have the advantage that they go
right through the planet, rather than having to go around its outside.
They have the disadvantage that they're difficult to generate and very >difficult to detect.
I do not understand why stock markets permit this kind of trading.
Why not impose a series of (say) half-hour slots, where each trader
is only permitted to act at most once per slot?
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
"Microsecond" is a great exaggeration. It takes about 67
milliseconds just to get a signal from one side of the planet to
the other. For instance from Madrid to Wellington or vice versa --
those two cities being almost directly opposite each other.
Yes, this is why the high volume traders have their data centers as
close as possible to the market as they can... often within the same
block, because the propagation delay is critical. 67 milliseconds
is enough to get hundreds of trades through.
Being closer to one market means you're further from another.
Granted, 67 milliseconds is short by most standards. We've come
a long way since the Battle of New Orleans was fought because the
combatants didn't realize that the peace treaty had been signed 15
days earlier.
Some folks have been talking about HF radio links for high volume
trading because the latency is lower than a satellite link or a
non-direct leased line, and they have got funding and frequency
allocations but they don't seem to be doing all that well.
One problem with HF is the relatively low bandwidth. Another is that
it's intermittent, depending on what the sun is doing. Yet another is
that modern digital electronics tends to make lots of radio noise that
jams faint signals.
One advantage of HF is that fewer people are using it than used to.
On 01/08/26 21:43, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
I don't understand how any jury can believe such evidence, but they
often do.
My experience as a juror left my with no trust at all in the jury
system. What justice can you get from a bunch of people who ignore the >evidence and vote based on their gut feeling?
I've heard it said that if you're guilty you should try to get a jury
trial, but if innocent you should fight for a judge-only trial. That's
based on an assumption that a jury will get it wrong.
Lack of money for those who lose in the deal.
That hardly convinces me that the system should be changed. You only
win or lose because you play, and the players choose to play.
They couldn't notice that it was missing if they didn't have the
concept.
And indeed they did not. Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the 7th
century.
I always found it peculiar that the gospels of Matthew and Luke
spent so much time listing Joseph's lineage, when he supposedly
wasn't related to Jesus at all.
And that they disagreed on it.
And indeed they did not. Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the 7th
century.
So how did this Brahmagupta notice it was missing, if they didnrCOt have
the concept?
On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 23:53:42 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
They couldn't notice that it was missing if they didn't have the
concept.
And indeed they did not. Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the 7th century.
So how did this Brahmagupta notice it was missing, if they didn't have
the concept?
Den 02.08.2026 kl. 10.30 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro:
And indeed they did not. Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the 7th
century.
So how did this Brahmagupta notice it was missing, if they didn't have
the concept?
How could Einstein notice the theory of relativism if nobody knew about it?
Den 01.08.2026 kl. 16.43 skrev Tony Cooper:
Lack of money for those who lose in the deal.
That hardly convinces me that the system should be changed. You only
win or lose because you play, and the players choose to play.
Maybe they don't. When I bought my house, I took a loan in a financial >institute. Technically they sell me some bonds which I then pay for each >quarter. If a microdealer bought those bonds microseconds before my part
was bought, they landed me with a higher debt for thirty years, and they >drove up house prices everywhere making it more difficult for young
people to get a house.
You can argue that my buying a house is a gamble where I have to risk >suffering a loss, but I see it as a normal way of getting a house to--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
live in.
Furthermore once in a while there will be a global, financial crisis
which drains money from 'small' people for no reason at all except >nervousness in investors. There was the it bubble and the housing bubble
and there will be more to come.
Maybe they don't. When I bought my house, I took a loan in a financial
institute. Technically they sell me some bonds which I then pay for each
quarter. If a microdealer bought those bonds microseconds before my part
was bought, they landed me with a higher debt for thirty years, and they
drove up house prices everywhere making it more difficult for young
people to get a house.
Never heard of that type of mortgage, but I'd hardly be familiar with
how things might be done in other countries.
In the US, one applies for a mortgage, receives an offer with
specified terms, and - if the offer is accepted - those terms are held
to. The only "surprise" is when the borrower has not read and
understood the terms.
Den 02.08.2026 kl. 16.24 skrev Tony Cooper:
Maybe they don't. When I bought my house, I took a loan in a financial
institute. Technically they sell me some bonds which I then pay for each >>> quarter. If a microdealer bought those bonds microseconds before my part >>> was bought, they landed me with a higher debt for thirty years, and they >>> drove up house prices everywhere making it more difficult for young
people to get a house.
Never heard of that type of mortgage, but I'd hardly be familiar with
how things might be done in other countries.
In the US, one applies for a mortgage, receives an offer with
specified terms, and - if the offer is accepted - those terms are held
to. The only "surprise" is when the borrower has not read and
understood the terms.
I can negotiate the mortgage with my bank (who represents the real
estate financial company) but it's the price on the day that decides
what it will cost. I chose a fixed interest of 1.5% which was possible
at the time - a lucky time for me.
On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 23:53:42 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
They couldn't notice that it was missing if they didn't have the
concept.
And indeed they did not. Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the 7th
century.
So how did this Brahmagupta notice it was missing, if they didnrCOt have
the concept?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the 7th century.
So how did this Brahmagupta notice it was missing, if they didnrCOt
have the concept?
Speculation: By looking at, and counting, physical objects, subtracting
one (removing an object) repeatedly until he got to one, then removing
one more, and realizing there needed to be a way to record what was left.
I can negotiate the mortgage with my bank (who represents the real
estate financial company) but it's the price on the day that decides
what it will cost. I chose a fixed interest of 1.5% which was possible
at the time - a lucky time for me.
I'm not sure on what "the day" means in that. In the US, you apply
for a mortage, receive an offer with the interest rate stated, and -
if you accept that - the mortgage goes through at that rate.
You may actually close several days later, and it's at closing that
the money transfers. If the prevailing interest rate changes between
the offer/acceptance, what was in the offer is the interest rate, not
the current rate.
Speculation: By looking at, and counting, physical objects, subtracting
one (removing an object) repeatedly until he got to one, then removing
one more, and realizing there needed to be a way to record what was left.
Plausible. But then how did anyone discover negative numbers?
Plausible. But then how did anyone discover negative numbers?
Den 02.08.2026 kl. 19.29 skrev Tony Cooper:
I can negotiate the mortgage with my bank (who represents the real
estate financial company) but it's the price on the day that decides
what it will cost. I chose a fixed interest of 1.5% which was possible
at the time - a lucky time for me.
I'm not sure on what "the day" means in that. In the US, you apply
for a mortage, receive an offer with the interest rate stated, and -
if you accept that - the mortgage goes through at that rate.
You may actually close several days later, and it's at closing that
the money transfers. If the prevailing interest rate changes between
the offer/acceptance, what was in the offer is the interest rate, not
the current rate.
The primary point is that it's stock exchange activities that decide
which price we pay for our houses no matter when the price is set.
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the 7th century.
So how did this Brahmagupta notice it was missing, if they didnrCOt
have the concept?
Speculation: By looking at, and counting, physical objects, subtracting
one (removing an object) repeatedly until he got to one, then removing
one more, and realizing there needed to be a way to record what was left.
Plausible. But then how did anyone discover negative numbers?
Den 02.08.2026 kl. 21.49 skrev Keith F. Lynch:
Speculation: By looking at, and counting, physical objects, subtracting >> one (removing an object) repeatedly until he got to one, then removing
one more, and realizing there needed to be a way to record what was left.
Plausible. But then how did anyone discover negative numbers?
They looked at their bank statements?
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the 7th century.
So how did this Brahmagupta notice it was missing, if they didn|ore4raot >>> have the concept?
Speculation: By looking at, and counting, physical objects, subtracting >> one (removing an object) repeatedly until he got to one, then removing
one more, and realizing there needed to be a way to record what was left.
Plausible. But then how did anyone discover negative numbers?
They never did. They had to invent them out of whole cloth.
How could Einstein notice the theory of relativism if nobody knew
about it?
On 8/2/2026 1:30 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 23:53:42 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
They couldn't notice that it was missing if they didn't have the
concept.
And indeed they did not. Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the
7th century.
So how did this Brahmagupta notice it was missing, if they didnrCOt
have the concept?
Speculation: By looking at, and counting, physical objects,
subtracting one (removing an object) repeatedly until he got to one,
then removing one more, and realizing there needed to be a way to
record what was left.
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:41:12 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
On 8/2/2026 1:30 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 23:53:42 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:
They couldn't notice that it was missing if they didn't have
the concept.
And indeed they did not. Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in
the 7th century.
So how did this Brahmagupta notice it was missing, if they
didnrCOt have the concept?
Speculation: By looking at, and counting, physical objects,
subtracting one (removing an object) repeatedly until he got to
one, then removing one more, and realizing there needed to be a way
to record what was left.
But above it was said rCLthey couldnrCOt notice that it was missing if
they didnrCOt have the conceptrCY.
So clearly, rCLtheyrCY could indeed notice such a thing, so the claim
was wrong.
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 21:59:00 +0200
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Den 02.08.2026 kl. 21.49 skrev Keith F. Lynch:
Speculation: By looking at, and counting, physical objects, subtracting >> one (removing an object) repeatedly until he got to one, then removing >> one more, and realizing there needed to be a way to record what was left.
Plausible. But then how did anyone discover negative numbers?
They looked at their bank statements?
I don't wish to be negative, but I have zero interest in this.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:36:28 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard" <news2012adn@google.com> wrote:
On 7/22/2026 9:21 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
But that generation passed, and the next generation either did not
notice, or if it noticved, did not care how 'offensive' the Russian
Federation would consider it to be
[Line break inserted to highlight the claim I reacted to]
if Nato put missiles in Ukraine,
thereby provoking the Russian Federation to invade Ukraine,
IIRC, Russia invaded before NATO began selling missiles to Ukraine.
It was what those in the trade like to refer to as a "preemptive
strike".
Please do not move the goalposts.
Please clarify where you put them.
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 16:40:59 -0400 (EDT)
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Zero was invented by Brahmagupta in the 7th century.
So how did this Brahmagupta notice it was missing, if they didn|ore4raot
have the concept?
Speculation: By looking at, and counting, physical objects, subtracting >> one (removing an object) repeatedly until he got to one, then removing >> one more, and realizing there needed to be a way to record what was left.
Plausible. But then how did anyone discover negative numbers?
They never did. They had to invent them out of whole cloth.
The Emperor's clothes are negative!
How could Einstein notice the theory of relativism if nobody knew
about it?
Not clear what this rCLtheory of relativismrCY is of which you speak.
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Add the people who have scores of computers set up to make deals on >>>>> the stock market every microsecond.
I do not understand why stock markets permit this kind of trading.
Neither do I. According to Preben Wilhjelm the Saxo Bank every day
has more money passing through than our BNP, and none of the money
do anything useful.
I don't understand the objection.
The people making the trades are individuals who make their living
(or try to) by stock trades. What detrimental effect does that have
on anyone else?
I too don't understand the objection.
"Microsecond" is a great exaggeration. It takes about 67 milliseconds
just to get a signal from one side of the planet to the other. For
instance from Madrid to Wellington or vice versa -- those two cities
being almost directly opposite each other.
Den 03.08.2026 kl. 07.45 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro:
How could Einstein notice the theory of relativism if nobody knew
about it?
Not clear what this "theory of relativism" is of which you speak.
Maybe "relativity" is the right word.
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 12:34:07 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
The current Russian line is to promote the Orthodox Church, with
Russia as the last bastion of true Christian values, and a mission
to correct Western decadence. The term to search is 'Russkiy Mir'
(Russian World)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
Its proposals are very parallel to MAGA's.
Religion and Fascism do often tend to go together, donrCOt they?
Do you believe in God?
And what we learned from the Spanish civil war (and the Russian
revolution, and other examples) is that atheism and communism also
tend to go together.
Do you believe in God?
If not (and even if so), would you happy for your beliefs to be
judged to be communist for that reason?
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 20:58:59 +0100, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
Do Goddists themselves believe in god?
Each goddist religion says their god is the only true god, all other
gods are false.
They canrCOt all be right on the first point, they can all be right on
the second.
In article <114rkhh$1qqv0$2@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D|+Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Do Goddists themselves believe in god?
Each goddist religion says their god is the only true god, all
other gods are false.
So... You are restricting the field of discourse to monotheist
religions.
All of this overlooks the initial problem of defining the
characteristics of the god or gods.
Ar an s|-|| l|i is fiche de m|! I||il, scr|!obh Lawrence DrCOOliveiro:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 12:34:07 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>
> > The current Russian line is to promote the Orthodox Church, with
> > Russia as the last bastion of true Christian values, and a mission
> > to correct Western decadence. The term to search is 'Russkiy Mir'
> > (Russian World)
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_world
> >
> > Its proposals are very parallel to MAGA's.
>
> Religion and Fascism do often tend to go together, donrCOt they?
And what we learned from the Spanish civil war (and the Russian revolution, and
other examples) is that atheism and communism also tend to go together. Do you
believe in God? If not (and even if so), would you happy for your beliefs to be
judged to be communist for that reason?
One thing that's clear is that the older gods were more powerful
than modern gods. For example, Joshua's god was able to stop the sun
in its path. That was only possible because the earth was the centre
of the universe. Any such attempt would be catastrophic after the heliocentric universe was invented.
But miracles were very common back then. Now, a miracle can happen
only if no trained observers are present.
If an omnipotent and omnipresent God really existed, and took an
interest in humanity (which seems unlikely, given how
mind-bogglingly tiny we are in His Universe), I don't think He'd put
up with all the intermediaries we have at present. All the bishops
and imams and rabbis preaching different things - ridiculous! No,
such a God would take over Truth Social and be contactable directly.
And such a God would be politically useless.
On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 09:22:14 +0100, Hibou wrote:
If an omnipotent and omnipresent God really existed, and took an
interest in humanity (which seems unlikely, given how
mind-bogglingly tiny we are in His Universe), I don't think He'd put
up with all the intermediaries we have at present. All the bishops
and imams and rabbis preaching different things - ridiculous! No,
such a God would take over Truth Social and be contactable directly.
The usual excuse for rejecting such an argument is the hoary old rCLbut itrCOs all part of GodrCOs mysterious plan, donrCOt you knowrCY.
Overlooking
the fact that an omnipotent being doesnrCOt *need* to have a plan ...
for anything. [...]
An immutable God is effectively frozen, cannot think and cannot act -
so, yes indeed, He has no need of a plan.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 20:58:59 +0100, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
Do you believe in God?
Do Goddists themselves believe in god?
Each goddist religion says their god is the only true god, all other
gods are false.
They canrCOt all be right on the first point, they can all be right on
the second.
On 04/08/26 15:01, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
All of this overlooks the initial problem of defining the
characteristics of the god or gods.
One thing that's clear is that the older gods were more powerful than
modern gods. For example, Joshua's god was able to stop the sun in its
path. That was only possible because the earth was the centre of the universe. Any such attempt would be catastrophic after the heliocentric universe was invented.
But miracles were very common back then. Now, a miracle can happen only
if no trained observers are present.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 20:58:59 +0100, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
Do you believe in God?
Do Goddists themselves believe in god?
But miracles were very common back then. Now, a miracle can happen only
if no trained observers are present.
On 8/3/2026 11:53 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
But miracles were very common back then. Now, a miracle can happen
only if no trained observers are present.
I will point out that most, if not all, of those stories were told generations after the alleged events described.
On 8/3/2026 7:58 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 20:58:59 +0100, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
Do you believe in God?
Do Goddists themselves believe in god?
Each goddist religion says their god is the only true god, all
other gods are false.
They canrCOt all be right on the first point, they can all be right
on the second.
You're only talking about monotheists.
On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 10:45:38 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
On 8/3/2026 7:58 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 20:58:59 +0100, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
Do you believe in God?
Do Goddists themselves believe in god?
Each goddist religion says their god is the only true god, all
other gods are false.
They canrCOt all be right on the first point, they can all be right
on the second.
You're only talking about monotheists.
You would hope so. But IrCOm sorry to say, I see some elements of rCLmy religious belief is morally superior to yoursrCY start to infect even adherents of Hinduism and Buddhism, in certain parts of the world.
On 8/4/26 20:43, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 10:45:38 -0700, Tim Merrigan wrote:
On 8/3/2026 7:58 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 20:58:59 +0100, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
Do you believe in God?
Do Goddists themselves believe in god?
Each goddist religion says their god is the only true god, all
other gods are false.
They canrCOt all be right on the first point, they can all be right
on the second.
You're only talking about monotheists.
You would hope so. But IrCOm sorry to say, I see some elements of rCLmy
religious belief is morally superior to yoursrCY start to infect even
adherents of Hinduism and Buddhism, in certain parts of the world.
There is a difference between what Tim said and what you seem to be responding to.
Tim said that when each goddist religion says their god is the only true god, they canrCOt all be right, but when they say all other gods are
false, they *can* all be right.
You are making some statement about beliefs in moral superiority of religions, not in beliefs in a god or gods.
There was this SF story I read once, where rCLGodrCY was actually a
component of all matter, that could be isolated in a chemically-pure
form. This led to some happenings (miracles etc) which many people
in authority (religious and otherwise) found highly disturbing.
On 8/3/2026 7:58 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
Each goddist religion says their god is the only true god, all
other gods are false.
They canrCOt all be right on the first point, they can all be right
on the second.
Tim said that when each goddist religion says their god is the only
true god, they canrCOt all be right, but when they say all other gods
are false, they *can* all be right.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 47:45:26 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,630 |