On 11/2/2022 11:56 AM, Peter Flass wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 01/11/2022 16:43, Dennis Boone wrote:
>>>> There are hundreds of words that are seldom used.
>>>
>>> The OED reputedly contains 600,000 words. I rather suspect that
>>> somewhat more than "hundreds" are seldom used.
>>>
>>> De
>>
>> Well its an interesting question. Some people use particular sets of
>> obscure words as part of their work, and use them a lot.
>>
>> I.e "atopic eczema" instead of 'allergic rash'.
>> At one time 'transconductance' was a regular part of my reading, if not
>> spoken ...
>>
>> I was thinking of words that almost everybody never uses, because there
>> are simpler better and more common ones that have identical meaning.
>>
>> And whose use usually indicates a desire to impress, or at least imply
>> pomposity.
>>
>> E.g. 'Bloviate'
>>
>
> I see, and occasionally use, “bloviate” in relation to politics. It is an
> excellent word to describe how most politicians talk.
>
> English has parallel sets of words from many sources. The biggest set is
> Anglo-Saxon vs. Norman French, but also Latin and Greek, with a smattering
> of other words from wherever english-speaking people have ever set foot. At
> one point I was on a crusade to purge French from the English language, or
> at least to pronounce them as if they were English words, like “foyer”,
> etc.
>

"American English does *not* borrow words; it drags them into an alley
and beats them senseless!!!"

--

Charles Richmond

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 11/2/2022 1:30 PM, Mike Spencer wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2022-11-02, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> English has parallel sets of words from many sources. The biggest set is
>>> Anglo-Saxon vs. Norman French, but also Latin and Greek, with a smattering
>>> of other words from wherever english-speaking people have ever set foot. At
>>> one point I was on a crusade to purge French from the English language, or
>>> at least to pronounce them as if they were English words, like "foyer",
>>> etc.
>>
>> The French don't have a word for 'entrepreneur'.
>> -- George W. Bush
>
> Peter, you should be able to find Poul Anderson's "Uncleftish
> Beholding" on-line. It is an article on basic atomic theory written
> only with words of Germanic origin. Excerpt:
>
> The firststuffs have their being as motes called *unclefts*.
> These are mightly small; one seedweight of waterstuff holds a
> tale of them like unto two followed by twenty-two naughts. Most
> unclefts link together to make what are called *bulkbits*.
> Thus, the waterstuff bulkbit bestands of two waterstuff
> unclefts, the sourstuff bulkbit of two sourstuff unclefts, and
> so on. (Some kinds, such as sunstuff, keep alone; others, such
> as iron, cling together in ices when in the fast standing; and
> there are yet more yokeways.) When unlike clefts link in a
> bulkbit, they make *bindings*. Thus, water is a binding of two
> waterstuff unclefts with one sourstuff uncleft, while a bulkbit
> of one of the forestuffs making up flesh may have a thousand
> thousand or more unclefts of these two firststuffs together
> with coalstuff and chokestuff.
>

Reminds me of the English (and German) versions of "Blinkenlights"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinkenlights

--

Charles Richmond

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 11/3/2022 4:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 02/11/2022 17:21, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2022-11-02, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> At one time 'transconductance' was a regular part of my reading, if not
>>> spoken ...
>>
>> I saw it as a characteristic of tubes, which aren't used much any mho.
>>
>
> Field effect transistors are. Hugely.
>

"The basic gain of vacuum tubes and FETs is expressed as
transconductance. It is represented with the symbol g-sub-m. The term
derives from "transfer conductance" and is measured in siemens (S),
where 1 siemens = 1 ampere per volt. It was formerly measured as "mho"
(ohm spelled backwards)."

Sure Charlie Gibbs is aware that vacuum tubes are *still* used in
specialized applications. Tube-based guitar amplifiers are a favorite
of many guitarists. Taking inflation into account, the prices of vacuum
tubes have *not* increased much.

--

Charles Richmond

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 11/3/2022 12:59 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-11-03, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> schrieb:
>>
>>> On 2022-11-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> However, in APL a polynomial can be written more perspicuously in the
>>>> form +/c×x*e , which also requires no parentheses.
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Jesus, what a steaming heap of shit. :-)
>>>
>>> Eschew obfuscation.
>>
>> Stamp out and abolish redundancy!
>
> This message has been brought to you by the
> Department of Redundancy Department.
>

I *never* repeat myself! Never!!!

--

Charles Richmond

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 2022-11-04, Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> "American English does *not* borrow words; it drags them into an alley
> and beats them senseless!!!"

The problem with defending the purity of the English language
is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We
don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued
other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and
rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
-- James D. Nicoll

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 2022-11-04, Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> On 11/3/2022 12:59 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2022-11-03, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-11-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> However, in APL a polynomial can be written more perspicuously in the
>>>>> form +/c×x*e , which also requires no parentheses.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesus, what a steaming heap of shit. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Eschew obfuscation.
>>>
>>> Stamp out and abolish redundancy!
>>
>> This message has been brought to you by the
>> Department of Redundancy Department.
>
>
> I *never* repeat myself! Never!!!

Come again? I don't think I got all that.

Charlie Gibbs
[Department of Incomplete

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 17:35:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>On 2022-11-04, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
>>
>> It’s grammatically plural, but that doesn’t stop it taking singular
>> referent (just like ‘you’).
>>
>>> The use of they as a singular for unknown gender is old and very
>>> common.
>>
>> Indeed.
>
>I've long seen it used when making a general reference which covers
>any number of people, and I don't have much of a problem with that.
>What's becoming more prevalent, though, is its use when referring
>to a single specific person - and that doesn't sit well with me.
>
>Mind you, anything that smells of "wokeness" sets off my alarm bells.

Thats terrible that you don't know woke means 'don't be stupid'.
--
Jim

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> On 2022-11-04, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
>>
>> It’s grammatically plural, but that doesn’t stop it taking singular
>> referent (just like ‘you’).
>>
>>> The use of they as a singular for unknown gender is old and very
>>> common.
>>
>> Indeed.
>
> I've long seen it used when making a general reference which covers
> any number of people, and I don't have much of a problem with that.
> What's becoming more prevalent, though, is its use when referring
> to a single specific person - and that doesn't sit well with me.

Pretty weird thing to get your knickers in a twist about.

> Mind you, anything that smells of "wokeness" sets off my alarm bells.

Well, you can opt into a culture war if you want...

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 05/11/2022 14:01, D.J. wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 17:35:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2022-11-04, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
>>>
>>> It’s grammatically plural, but that doesn’t stop it taking singular
>>> referent (just like ‘you’).
>>>
>>>> The use of they as a singular for unknown gender is old and very
>>>> common.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>
>> I've long seen it used when making a general reference which covers
>> any number of people, and I don't have much of a problem with that.
>> What's becoming more prevalent, though, is its use when referring
>> to a single specific person - and that doesn't sit well with me.
>>
>> Mind you, anything that smells of "wokeness" sets off my alarm bells.
>
> Thats terrible that you don't know woke means 'don't be stupid'.
And is only used by those who are....
> --
> Jim

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

On 05/11/2022 14:47, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>> On 2022-11-04, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
>>>
>>> It’s grammatically plural, but that doesn’t stop it taking singular
>>> referent (just like ‘you’).
>>>
>>>> The use of they as a singular for unknown gender is old and very
>>>> common.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>
>> I've long seen it used when making a general reference which covers
>> any number of people, and I don't have much of a problem with that.
>> What's becoming more prevalent, though, is its use when referring
>> to a single specific person - and that doesn't sit well with me.
>
> Pretty weird thing to get your knickers in a twist about.
>
>> Mind you, anything that smells of "wokeness" sets off my alarm bells.
>
> Well, you can opt into a culture war if you want...
>
I am afraid that's been forced on us whether we opted for it or not.

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

On 04/11/2022 17:35, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-11-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 03/11/2022 17:56, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 09:08:23 +0000
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Queer was never very offensive.
>>>>
>>>> People called queer used to take offense.
>>>>
>>>>> I think gay is ,more offensive. Especially as its now been taken over
>>>>> and used by the common man to means 'insipid, useless, not fit for
>>>>> purpose' and generally naff..
>>>>
>>>> I thought that usage had died out - I came across it about ten
>>>> years ago and haven't heard it since - whereas homosexual people will
>>>> quite happily say "I am gay".
>>>
>>> It may have died out. I think it was a teenageism, and they come and go
>>> pretty quickly.
>>
>> People who used it in my earshot were all young middle aged and more or
>> less working class.
>
> It sounds like something a South Park character would say.
>
Quite possibly. Many years since I watched that.
--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

On Sat, 5 Nov 2022 15:50:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 05/11/2022 14:01, D.J. wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 17:35:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-04, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
>>>>
>>>> It’s grammatically plural, but that doesn’t stop it taking singular
>>>> referent (just like ‘you’).
>>>>
>>>>> The use of they as a singular for unknown gender is old and very
>>>>> common.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> I've long seen it used when making a general reference which covers
>>> any number of people, and I don't have much of a problem with that.
>>> What's becoming more prevalent, though, is its use when referring
>>> to a single specific person - and that doesn't sit well with me.
>>>
>>> Mind you, anything that smells of "wokeness" sets off my alarm bells.
>>
>> Thats terrible that you don't know woke means 'don't be stupid'.
>
>And is only used by those who are....

You're funny. Bless your heart.
--
Jim

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>> On 2022-11-04, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
>>>
>>> It’s grammatically plural, but that doesn’t stop it taking singular
>>> referent (just like ‘you’).
>>>
>>>> The use of they as a singular for unknown gender is old and very
>>>> common.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>
>> I've long seen it used when making a general reference which covers
>> any number of people, and I don't have much of a problem with that.
>> What's becoming more prevalent, though, is its use when referring
>> to a single specific person - and that doesn't sit well with me.
>
> Pretty weird thing to get your knickers in a twist about.
>
>> Mind you, anything that smells of "wokeness" sets off my alarm bells.
>
> Well, you can opt into a culture war if you want...
>

I ignore it all. Like Popeye, “I yam what I yam,” If someone doesn’t like
it, too bad.

--
Pete

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>> On 2022-11-04, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
>>>>
>>>> It’s grammatically plural, but that doesn’t stop it taking singular
>>>> referent (just like ‘you’).
>>>>
>>>>> The use of they as a singular for unknown gender is old and very
>>>>> common.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> I've long seen it used when making a general reference which covers
>>> any number of people, and I don't have much of a problem with that.
>>> What's becoming more prevalent, though, is its use when referring
>>> to a single specific person - and that doesn't sit well with me.
>>
>> Pretty weird thing to get your knickers in a twist about.
>>
>>> Mind you, anything that smells of "wokeness" sets off my alarm bells.
>>
>> Well, you can opt into a culture war if you want...
>>
>
> I ignore it all. Like Popeye, “I yam what I yam,” If someone doesn’t like
> it, too bad.
>

Of course, I’m not trying to sell anyone anything, or get someone to pay me
to promote a product. If I were, I’d probably as phony as all the rest of
them.

--
Pete

On Sat, 5 Nov 2022 15:50:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 05/11/2022 14:01, D.J. wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 17:35:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2022-11-04, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
>>>>
>>>> It’s grammatically plural, but that doesn’t stop it taking singular
>>>> referent (just like ‘you’).
>>>>
>>>>> The use of they as a singular for unknown gender is old and very
>>>>> common.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> I've long seen it used when making a general reference which covers
>>> any number of people, and I don't have much of a problem with that.
>>> What's becoming more prevalent, though, is its use when referring
>>> to a single specific person - and that doesn't sit well with me.
>>>
>>> Mind you, anything that smells of "wokeness" sets off my alarm bells.
>>
>> Thats terrible that you don't know woke means 'don't be stupid'.
>And is only used by those who are....

I didn't understand where you were coming from. But I get it now. Fox
Entertaiment is your 'news' of choice. Because that is one of the
originators of such nonsense.
--
Jim

On 2022-11-05, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 17:35:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Mind you, anything that smells of "wokeness" sets off my alarm bells.
>
> Thats terrible that you don't know woke means 'don't be stupid'.

I heard that it stands for
"Without Originality, Knowledge, or Experience".

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 11/4/2022 3:23 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-11-04, Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/3/2022 12:59 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-11-03, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-11-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> However, in APL a polynomial can be written more perspicuously in the
>>>>>> form +/c×x*e , which also requires no parentheses.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jesus, what a steaming heap of shit. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Eschew obfuscation.
>>>>
>>>> Stamp out and abolish redundancy!
>>>
>>> This message has been brought to you by the
>>> Department of Redundancy Department.
>>
>>
>> I *never* repeat myself! Never!!!
>
> Come again? I don't think I got all that.
>
> Charlie Gibbs
> [Department of Incomplete
>

Can you repeat that over again one more time???

--

Charles Richmond

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 05/11/2022 14:47, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Well, you can opt into a culture war if you want...
>>
> I am afraid that's been forced on us whether we opted for it or not.

Don’t be silly. Millions people ignore it all. You can choose to do so
too.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 06/11/2022 12:01, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 05/11/2022 14:47, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> Well, you can opt into a culture war if you want...
>>>
>> I am afraid that's been forced on us whether we opted for it or not.
>
> Don’t be silly. Millions people ignore it all. You can choose to do so
> too.
>

That's not really true.

Woke is like religion, the basic principles are sensible, e.g. thou
shall not covert thy neighbour's ass.., we shouldn't be nasty to gay
people..., but in both there is a dogmatic intolerance of heresy. This
is particularly significant where the ideology is unreasonable, and
often inconsistent.

So you see people being shunned, having their careers damaged, for
saying things like transgender women (born as men) should not compete in
female sports.

On Sun, 6 Nov 2022 12:33:01 +0000
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

> Woke is like religion, the basic principles are sensible, e.g. thou
> shall not covert thy neighbour's ass.., we shouldn't be nasty to gay
> people..., but in both there is a dogmatic intolerance of heresy.

I was chatting to a friend about times past and talked about the
nasty little battery radios that were the curse of some beaches calling
them by the name we used then trannies - short for transistor radios.
Someone nearby heard nothing of the conversation except the word trannies
and promptly started lecturing me on how this was an offensive term to
transgender people - it took a while to shut them up for long enough to
explain that I wasn't talking about people of any kind.

Some people seem to look for opportunities to take offense.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Sat, 05 Nov 2022 23:53:20 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>On 2022-11-05, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 17:35:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Mind you, anything that smells of "wokeness" sets off my alarm bells.
>>
>> Thats terrible that you don't know woke means 'don't be stupid'.
>
>I heard that it stands for
>"Without Originality, Knowledge, or Experience".

I can see that, if you get your 'information' from Fox entertainment.
--
Jim

On Sun, 6 Nov 2022 12:33:01 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
wrote:
>On 06/11/2022 12:01, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> On 05/11/2022 14:47, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> Well, you can opt into a culture war if you want...
>>>>
>>> I am afraid that's been forced on us whether we opted for it or not.
>>
>> Don’t be silly. Millions people ignore it all. You can choose to do so
>> too.
>>
>
>That's not really true.
>
>Woke is like religion, the basic principles are sensible, e.g. thou
>shall not covert thy neighbour's ass.., we shouldn't be nasty to gay
>people..., but in both there is a dogmatic intolerance of heresy. This
>is particularly significant where the ideology is unreasonable, and
>often inconsistent.
>
>So you see people being shunned, having their careers damaged, for
>saying things like transgender women (born as men) should not compete in
>female sports.

That last sounds more like bigots pretending to be woke.
--
Jim

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2022 12:33:01 +0000
> Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
>
>> Woke is like religion, the basic principles are sensible, e.g. thou
>> shall not covert thy neighbour's ass.., we shouldn't be nasty to gay
>> people..., but in both there is a dogmatic intolerance of heresy.
>
> I was chatting to a friend about times past and talked about the
> nasty little battery radios that were the curse of some beaches calling
> them by the name we used then trannies - short for transistor radios.
> Someone nearby heard nothing of the conversation except the word trannies
> and promptly started lecturing me on how this was an offensive term to
> transgender people - it took a while to shut them up for long enough to
> explain that I wasn't talking about people of any kind.
>
> Some people seem to look for opportunities to take offense.
>

First of all, it’s extremely rude to interject yourself into someone else’s
conversation, for any reason.

--
Pete

On 05/11/2022 19:27, Peter Flass wrote:
> Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>> On 2022-11-04, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
>>>>
>>>> It’s grammatically plural, but that doesn’t stop it taking singular
>>>> referent (just like ‘you’).
>>>>
>>>>> The use of they as a singular for unknown gender is old and very
>>>>> common.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> I've long seen it used when making a general reference which covers
>>> any number of people, and I don't have much of a problem with that.
>>> What's becoming more prevalent, though, is its use when referring
>>> to a single specific person - and that doesn't sit well with me.
>>
>> Pretty weird thing to get your knickers in a twist about.
>>
>>> Mind you, anything that smells of "wokeness" sets off my alarm bells.
>>
>> Well, you can opt into a culture war if you want...
>>
>
> I ignore it all. Like Popeye, “I yam what I yam,” If someone doesn’t like
> it, too bad.
>

The problem is that you are no longer allowed to ignore it.

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 05/11/2022 20:41, D.J. wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Nov 2022 15:50:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 05/11/2022 14:01, D.J. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 17:35:21 GMT, Charlie Gibbs
>>> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-11-04, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s grammatically plural, but that doesn’t stop it taking singular
>>>>> referent (just like ‘you’).
>>>>>
>>>>>> The use of they as a singular for unknown gender is old and very
>>>>>> common.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> I've long seen it used when making a general reference which covers
>>>> any number of people, and I don't have much of a problem with that.
>>>> What's becoming more prevalent, though, is its use when referring
>>>> to a single specific person - and that doesn't sit well with me.
>>>>
>>>> Mind you, anything that smells of "wokeness" sets off my alarm bells.
>>>
>>> Thats terrible that you don't know woke means 'don't be stupid'.
>> And is only used by those who are....
>
> I didn't understand where you were coming from. But I get it now. Fox
> Entertaiment is your 'news' of choice. Because that is one of the
> originators of such nonsense.
> --
> Jim

Dearly beloved Jim., we don't get Fox news in the UK

Just because your worldview is formed by the media you espouse, doesn't
mean everyone else's is like that.
You remind ,e of the christians who say 'well what do *YOU* believe in
then? and when you say 'nothing' they simply don't believe it....

Woke is a fairly blatant Marxist piece of AgitProp. If you haven't come
to grips with what has been going on in the last 70 years with respect
to cultural Marxism. well , you probably never will.

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.