On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 15:56:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 07/11/2022 11:53, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 10:21:01 +0000, Pancho wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/11/2022 23:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Its classic Marxist dialectic. You have laid it out yourself
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Marxist dialectic? Come on, I is a pleb. The only Marx I can quote is
>>> Groucho.
>>
>> To TNP, you're a Marxists if you are even slightly to the left of Attila
>> the Hun.
>>
>> It makes his life simpler.
>>
>>
>>
>
>No, Its not a question of left or right, its a question of the actual
>agenda - the matrix - on which you draw left and right
>
>It might start with an innocent question like 'do you believe in human
>rights'?
>
>My honest answer philosophically would be 'no., I dont'

Then you believe, but wont admit even to yourself, in dictatorship.

--
Jim

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 16:00:01 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 07/11/2022 15:10, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On 7 Nov 2022 11:53:58 GMT
> > Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
> >
> >> To TNP, you're a Marxists if you are even slightly to the left of
> >> Attila the Hun.
> >
> > But I thought he was all for state ownership - he's the state
> > and he owns it all, arguing is harder without a head.
> >

<woosh> :)

> I am absolutely not for state ownership except as a last resort.

Not you Atilla the Hun - it was a joke.

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

On 07/11/2022 16:52, D.J. wrote:
> Here in the US woke is used as a derisive term by people on the far
> right who don't like being reminded that their anncestors had slaves.

That is precisely the sort of bigotry that 'woke' people advocate.

How about all the black people that had slaves? Or the Arab people that
had slaves,. Or the Roman people that had slaves. Or the Viking people
who had slaves.

I can't think of an agricultural society that *hasn't* had slaves.

My ancestors - some of them - were slaves.

What does it benefit anybody to make a big deal out of it?

--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 17:00:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 07/11/2022 16:52, D.J. wrote:
>> Here in the US woke is used as a derisive term by people on the far
>> right who don't like being reminded that their anncestors had slaves.
>
>That is precisely the sort of bigotry that 'woke' people advocate.
>
>How about all the black people that had slaves? Or the Arab people that
>had slaves,. Or the Roman people that had slaves. Or the Viking people
>who had slaves.

Roman Empire is gone. Vikings are gone, but some twits are trying to
bring them back.

>I can't think of an agricultural society that *hasn't* had slaves.
>
>My ancestors - some of them - were slaves.
>
>What does it benefit anybody to make a big deal out of it?

To remember and not do it anymore.

My Comanche relatives had slaves, but a slave could work their way up
and become a full tribe member. Don't worry, they took whites and
enslaved them.
--
Jim

On 07/11/2022 16:58, D.J. wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 15:56:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2022 11:53, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 10:21:01 +0000, Pancho wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/11/2022 23:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Its classic Marxist dialectic. You have laid it out yourself
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Marxist dialectic? Come on, I is a pleb. The only Marx I can quote is
>>>> Groucho.
>>>
>>> To TNP, you're a Marxists if you are even slightly to the left of Attila
>>> the Hun.
>>>
>>> It makes his life simpler.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, Its not a question of left or right, its a question of the actual
>> agenda - the matrix - on which you draw left and right
>>
>> It might start with an innocent question like 'do you believe in human
>> rights'?
>>
>> My honest answer philosophically would be 'no., I dont'
>
> Then you believe, but wont admit even to yourself, in dictatorship.
>
What on earth weird chain of thought, led to that?

Perhaps your worldview is so woke that you cannot understand the
difference between belief in the innate existence of something, and the
development of law that establishes a stable society.

Woke idiots *believe* in human rights. Sane conservatives *define* them
in law. By consensus.

Not because they have some god given moral authority, but because they
allow society to function.

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On 07/11/2022 17:05, D.J. wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 17:00:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 07/11/2022 16:52, D.J. wrote:
>>> Here in the US woke is used as a derisive term by people on the far
>>> right who don't like being reminded that their anncestors had slaves.
>>
>> That is precisely the sort of bigotry that 'woke' people advocate.
>>
>> How about all the black people that had slaves? Or the Arab people that
>> had slaves,. Or the Roman people that had slaves. Or the Viking people
>> who had slaves.
>
> Roman Empire is gone. Vikings are gone, but some twits are trying to
> bring them back.
>
>> I can't think of an agricultural society that *hasn't* had slaves.
>>
>> My ancestors - some of them - were slaves.
>>
>> What does it benefit anybody to make a big deal out of it?
>
> To remember and not do it anymore.
>
Remember? WTF? The only people who DONT remember are the black Africans
who raided their neighbours to sell their sons and daughters on.

> My Comanche relatives had slaves, but a slave could work their way up
> and become a full tribe member. Don't worry, they took whites and
> enslaved them.

As did every other nation in the world.
Slavery isn't some European aberration - the aberration is we decided to
get rid of it.

No other nation did.
> --
> Jim

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 2022-11-02 1:21 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.

I take it thou desires to go back to thou and thine
since "you" and "your" are also plural. :)

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 17:16:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 07/11/2022 17:05, D.J. wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 17:00:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/11/2022 16:52, D.J. wrote:
>>>> Here in the US woke is used as a derisive term by people on the far
>>>> right who don't like being reminded that their anncestors had slaves.
>>>
>>> That is precisely the sort of bigotry that 'woke' people advocate.
>>>
>>> How about all the black people that had slaves? Or the Arab people that
>>> had slaves,. Or the Roman people that had slaves. Or the Viking people
>>> who had slaves.
>>
>> Roman Empire is gone. Vikings are gone, but some twits are trying to
>> bring them back.
>>
>>> I can't think of an agricultural society that *hasn't* had slaves.
>>>
>>> My ancestors - some of them - were slaves.
>>>
>>> What does it benefit anybody to make a big deal out of it?
>>
>> To remember and not do it anymore.
>>
>Remember? WTF? The only people who DONT remember are the black Africans
>who raided their neighbours to sell their sons and daughters on.

But they do remember. There is a slavery history museum in Dahomy. The
people who run it, are descendants of those African slavers.

>> My Comanche relatives had slaves, but a slave could work their way up
>> and become a full tribe member. Don't worry, they took whites and
>> enslaved them.
>
>As did every other nation in the world.
>Slavery isn't some European aberration - the aberration is we decided to
>get rid of it.
>
>No other nation did.

Slavery is the aberration kid.
--
Jim

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 17:09:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 07/11/2022 16:58, D.J. wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 15:56:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 07/11/2022 11:53, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 10:21:01 +0000, Pancho wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/11/2022 23:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its classic Marxist dialectic. You have laid it out yourself
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Marxist dialectic? Come on, I is a pleb. The only Marx I can quote is
>>>>> Groucho.
>>>>
>>>> To TNP, you're a Marxists if you are even slightly to the left of Attila
>>>> the Hun.
>>>>
>>>> It makes his life simpler.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, Its not a question of left or right, its a question of the actual
>>> agenda - the matrix - on which you draw left and right
>>>
>>> It might start with an innocent question like 'do you believe in human
>>> rights'?
>>>
>>> My honest answer philosophically would be 'no., I dont'
>>
>> Then you believe, but wont admit even to yourself, in dictatorship.
>>
>What on earth weird chain of thought, led to that?

Your posts.

>Perhaps your worldview is so woke that you cannot understand the
>difference between belief in the innate existence of something, and the
>development of law that establishes a stable society.
>
>Woke idiots *believe* in human rights. Sane conservatives *define* them
>in law. By consensus.

Nope.

>Not because they have some god given moral authority, but because they
>allow society to function.

Conservatives never believe in rights, in the US, for anyone but rich
white males.
--
Jim

On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 12:53:23 -0500, Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> wrote:

> On 2022-11-02 1:21 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
>
> I take it thou desires to go back to thou and thine
> since "you" and "your" are also plural. :)

Whoever posted the part labeled as being from Charlie Gibbs, they (singular)
need a better education on the English language.

Dave Hodgins

On 07/11/2022 17:53, Alan Bowler wrote:
> On 2022-11-02 1:21 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> Leave "they" alone.  It's plural.
>
> I take it thou desires to go back to thou and thine
> since "you" and "your" are also plural. :)
>
I think it would be huge fun to go back to Thou Thee and thine.

Or should that be Þou, Þee and Þine?

And that should be

I take it þou desirest to go back to þou and þine....

--
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

On 07/11/2022 19:02, D.J. wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 17:16:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2022 17:05, D.J. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 17:00:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/11/2022 16:52, D.J. wrote:
>>>>> Here in the US woke is used as a derisive term by people on the far
>>>>> right who don't like being reminded that their anncestors had slaves.
>>>>
>>>> That is precisely the sort of bigotry that 'woke' people advocate.
>>>>
>>>> How about all the black people that had slaves? Or the Arab people that
>>>> had slaves,. Or the Roman people that had slaves. Or the Viking people
>>>> who had slaves.
>>>
>>> Roman Empire is gone. Vikings are gone, but some twits are trying to
>>> bring them back.
>>>
>>>> I can't think of an agricultural society that *hasn't* had slaves.
>>>>
>>>> My ancestors - some of them - were slaves.
>>>>
>>>> What does it benefit anybody to make a big deal out of it?
>>>
>>> To remember and not do it anymore.
>>>
>> Remember? WTF? The only people who DONT remember are the black Africans
>> who raided their neighbours to sell their sons and daughters on.
>
> But they do remember. There is a slavery history museum in Dahomy. The
> people who run it, are descendants of those African slavers.
>
>>> My Comanche relatives had slaves, but a slave could work their way up
>>> and become a full tribe member. Don't worry, they took whites and
>>> enslaved them.
>>
>> As did every other nation in the world.
>> Slavery isn't some European aberration - the aberration is we decided to
>> get rid of it.
>>
>> No other nation did.
>
> Slavery is the aberration kid.

Whatever.

There are words, and there is what happened.

Europe got rid of slavery. No one else did.

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 07/11/2022 19:03, D.J. wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 17:09:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2022 16:58, D.J. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 15:56:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 07/11/2022 11:53, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 10:21:01 +0000, Pancho wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/11/2022 23:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its classic Marxist dialectic. You have laid it out yourself
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marxist dialectic? Come on, I is a pleb. The only Marx I can quote is
>>>>>> Groucho.
>>>>>
>>>>> To TNP, you're a Marxists if you are even slightly to the left of Attila
>>>>> the Hun.
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes his life simpler.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, Its not a question of left or right, its a question of the actual
>>>> agenda - the matrix - on which you draw left and right
>>>>
>>>> It might start with an innocent question like 'do you believe in human
>>>> rights'?
>>>>
>>>> My honest answer philosophically would be 'no., I dont'
>>>
>>> Then you believe, but wont admit even to yourself, in dictatorship.
>>>
>> What on earth weird chain of thought, led to that?
>
> Your posts.
>
>> Perhaps your worldview is so woke that you cannot understand the
>> difference between belief in the innate existence of something, and the
>> development of law that establishes a stable society.
>>
>> Woke idiots *believe* in human rights. Sane conservatives *define* them
>> in law. By consensus.
>
> Nope.
Yup.
>
>> Not because they have some god given moral authority, but because they
>> allow society to function.
>
> Conservatives never believe in rights, in the US, for anyone but rich
> white males.

There you go with more woke bigotry.
Conservatives do not believe in rights for rich white males. Those are
fascists pretending to be liberals

Conservatives understand that a legal framework of rights is a good way
to regulate a society so that it can *function*.
A concept foreign to Liberals and other ArtStudents™

You don't even seem to understand what 'conservative' means. In essence
it is, applied to legal political and moral codes 'if it ain't broke,
dont fix it'

> --
> Jim

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 07/11/2022 19:15, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 12:53:23 -0500, Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-11-02 1:21 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> Leave "they" alone.  It's plural.
>>
>> I take it thou desires to go back to thou and thine
>> since "you" and "your" are also plural. :)
>
> Whoever posted the part labeled as being from Charlie Gibbs, they
> (singular)
> need a better education on the English language.
>
Well no, The American language perhaps, but in English, They are plural.
They is not singular.

I have noticed the plural form of verbs has all but disappeared.

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 19:51:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 07/11/2022 19:03, D.J. wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 17:09:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 07/11/2022 16:58, D.J. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 15:56:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 07/11/2022 11:53, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 10:21:01 +0000, Pancho wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/11/2022 23:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its classic Marxist dialectic. You have laid it out yourself
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marxist dialectic? Come on, I is a pleb. The only Marx I can quote is
>>>>>>> Groucho.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To TNP, you're a Marxists if you are even slightly to the left of Attila
>>>>>> the Hun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It makes his life simpler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Its not a question of left or right, its a question of the actual
>>>>> agenda - the matrix - on which you draw left and right
>>>>>
>>>>> It might start with an innocent question like 'do you believe in human
>>>>> rights'?
>>>>>
>>>>> My honest answer philosophically would be 'no., I dont'
>>>>
>>>> Then you believe, but wont admit even to yourself, in dictatorship.
>>>>
>>> What on earth weird chain of thought, led to that?
>>
>> Your posts.
>>
>>> Perhaps your worldview is so woke that you cannot understand the
>>> difference between belief in the innate existence of something, and the
>>> development of law that establishes a stable society.
>>>
>>> Woke idiots *believe* in human rights. Sane conservatives *define* them
>>> in law. By consensus.
>>
>> Nope.
>Yup.
>>
>>> Not because they have some god given moral authority, but because they
>>> allow society to function.
>>
>> Conservatives never believe in rights, in the US, for anyone but rich
>> white males.
>
>There you go with more woke bigotry.
>Conservatives do not believe in rights for rich white males. Those are
>fascists pretending to be liberals

Not US conservatives. The only thing they want to preserve is white
priviledge.

>Conservatives understand that a legal framework of rights is a good way
>to regulate a society so that it can *function*.
>A concept foreign to Liberals and other ArtStudents™
>
>You don't even seem to understand what 'conservative' means. In essence
>it is, applied to legal political and moral codes 'if it ain't broke,
>dont fix it'

The US white conservatives aren't like the people you are used
to/know. In the past 10 or so years they have leaned to the far right.
--
Jim

On 07/11/2022 20:01, D.J. wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 19:51:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2022 19:03, D.J. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 17:09:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 07/11/2022 16:58, D.J. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 15:56:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/11/2022 11:53, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 10:21:01 +0000, Pancho wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 06/11/2022 23:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Its classic Marxist dialectic. You have laid it out yourself
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marxist dialectic? Come on, I is a pleb. The only Marx I can quote is
>>>>>>>> Groucho.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To TNP, you're a Marxists if you are even slightly to the left of Attila
>>>>>>> the Hun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It makes his life simpler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, Its not a question of left or right, its a question of the actual
>>>>>> agenda - the matrix - on which you draw left and right
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might start with an innocent question like 'do you believe in human
>>>>>> rights'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My honest answer philosophically would be 'no., I dont'
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you believe, but wont admit even to yourself, in dictatorship.
>>>>>
>>>> What on earth weird chain of thought, led to that?
>>>
>>> Your posts.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps your worldview is so woke that you cannot understand the
>>>> difference between belief in the innate existence of something, and the
>>>> development of law that establishes a stable society.
>>>>
>>>> Woke idiots *believe* in human rights. Sane conservatives *define* them
>>>> in law. By consensus.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>> Yup.
>>>
>>>> Not because they have some god given moral authority, but because they
>>>> allow society to function.
>>>
>>> Conservatives never believe in rights, in the US, for anyone but rich
>>> white males.
>>
>> There you go with more woke bigotry.
>> Conservatives do not believe in rights for rich white males. Those are
>> fascists pretending to be liberals
>
> Not US conservatives. The only thing they want to preserve is white
> priviledge.
>

Then they are as not-conservative as the democrats are not-demcratic and
the Liberals are not-liberal

>
>> Conservatives understand that a legal framework of rights is a good way
>> to regulate a society so that it can *function*.
>> A concept foreign to Liberals and other ArtStudents™
>>
>> You don't even seem to understand what 'conservative' means. In essence
>> it is, applied to legal political and moral codes 'if it ain't broke,
>> dont fix it'
>
> The US white conservatives aren't like the people you are used
> to/know. In the past 10 or so years they have leaned to the far right.

Then they are not true conservatives, any more than the Democrats are
true socialists.

> --
> Jim

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I???m retired, so I can???t lose my job. I don???t care whether or not people
> like me, follow me on instagram, or whatever. I can do what I want. If I
> still had my job at the university I???d probably have to be more careful.
>

I'm afraid that with your attitude if you still had your job at the
university, you wouldn't have your job at the university.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 14:53:50 -0500, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 07/11/2022 19:15, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 12:53:23 -0500, Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-11-02 1:21 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
>>>
>>> I take it thou desires to go back to thou and thine
>>> since "you" and "your" are also plural. :)
>>
>> Whoever posted the part labeled as being from Charlie Gibbs, they
>> (singular)
>> need a better education on the English language.
>>
> Well no, The American language perhaps, but in English, They are plural.
> They is not singular.
>
>
> I have noticed the plural form of verbs has all but disappeared.

I'm Canadian. I was taught that "they" can be singular when referring to
an unidentified individual.

Dave Hodgins

On 07/11/2022 20:28, root wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I???m retired, so I can???t lose my job. I don???t care whether or not people
>> like me, follow me on instagram, or whatever. I can do what I want. If I
>> still had my job at the university I???d probably have to be more careful.
>>
>
> I'm afraid that with your attitude if you still had your job at the
> university, you wouldn't have your job at the university.

Indeed. Article in the news today, that all the alumni of Cambridge
university are cancelling the donations in their wills because of its
outright politicisation.

You cancel free speech, we cancel our donations.
Seems a fair enough trade.

--
“A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 07/11/2022 20:23, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 14:53:50 -0500, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 07/11/2022 19:15, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 12:53:23 -0500, Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-11-02 1:21 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>> Leave "they" alone.  It's plural.
>>>>
>>>> I take it thou desires to go back to thou and thine
>>>> since "you" and "your" are also plural. :)
>>>
>>> Whoever posted the part labeled as being from Charlie Gibbs, they
>>> (singular)
>>> need a better education on the English language.
>>>
>> Well no, The American language perhaps, but in English, They are plural.
>> They is not singular.
>>
>>
>> I have noticed the plural form of verbs has all but disappeared.
>
> I'm Canadian. I was taught that "they" can be singular when referring to
> an unidentified individual.
>
Autre temps, autre moeurs.

You can get away with 'someone was here, they were daring' but it still
takes the plural verb form and its not what I would call 'correct
English' but then correct English is only taught in India, these days.

> Dave Hodgins

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 2022-11-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2022 23:31:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
><tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>On 06/11/2022 16:13, D.J. wrote:
>>> 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
>>What is this fix entertainment?
>>
>>One presumes you get yours from the NY times or the washington Post.
>>
>>Bastions of marxist thought
>
> Actually, I don't read nor watch those.
>
> I get mine from a wide set of news organizations. Actual news.
> --
> Jim

I would be curious if you would enumerate a few of those sites.
I'm always looking for more points of view.

I look at google news, rt and sputnik among others...what can you recommend?
I usually give up if I hit a paywall. (I wonder if there's "Usenet News"
somewhere....hmmm.)

Pureheart in Aptos

P.S.: "They" is plural.

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 20:15:28 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Then they are not true conservatives, any more than the Democrats are
>true socialists.

You actually made sense that time. Scary.
--
Jim

On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 15:23:29 -0500, "David W. Hodgins"
<dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 14:53:50 -0500, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 07/11/2022 19:15, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 12:53:23 -0500, Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-11-02 1:21 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>> Leave "they" alone. It's plural.
>>>>
>>>> I take it thou desires to go back to thou and thine
>>>> since "you" and "your" are also plural. :)
>>>
>>> Whoever posted the part labeled as being from Charlie Gibbs, they
>>> (singular)
>>> need a better education on the English language.
>>>
>> Well no, The American language perhaps, but in English, They are plural.
>> They is not singular.
>>
>>
>> I have noticed the plural form of verbs has all but disappeared.
>
>I'm Canadian. I was taught that "they" can be singular when referring to
>an unidentified individual.

Some Texans were apparently taught differently, but I was taught that
"You'all" can be used either signular or plural, depending on context.
--
Jim

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 21:45:02 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org>
wrote:
>On 2022-11-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2022 23:31:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>><tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>On 06/11/2022 16:13, D.J. wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>What is this fix entertainment?
>>>
>>>One presumes you get yours from the NY times or the washington Post.
>>>
>>>Bastions of marxist thought
>>
>> Actually, I don't read nor watch those.
>>
>> I get mine from a wide set of news organizations. Actual news.
>> --
>> Jim
>
>I would be curious if you would enumerate a few of those sites.
>I'm always looking for more points of view.
>
>I look at google news, rt and sputnik among others...what can you recommend?
>I usually give up if I hit a paywall. (I wonder if there's "Usenet News"
>somewhere....hmmm.)
>
>Pureheart in Aptos
>
>P.S.: "They" is plural.

Lets see, many of commentators on CNN are apologists for trumpie. And
some are not, hard to determine sometimes. I watch MSNBC, BBC America,
local tv channels but they are misquoting politicians that are not far
right.

Mostly I watch Science channel for: 'Strange evidence', 'Mysteries of
the Abandoned' and 'How the Universe vWorks'.

Some on Facebook are okay, and some are raving loonies who claim there
are things in various US documents I know arent there... I've read
them.
--
Jim

On 2022-11-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 21:45:02 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org>
> wrote:
>>On 2022-11-07, D.J <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2022 23:31:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>><tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>On 06/11/2022 16:13, D.J. wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>What is this fix entertainment?
>>>>
>>>>One presumes you get yours from the NY times or the washington Post.
>>>>
>>>>Bastions of marxist thought
>>>
>>> Actually, I don't read nor watch those.
>>>
>>> I get mine from a wide set of news organizations. Actual news.
>>> --
>>> Jim
>>
>>I would be curious if you would enumerate a few of those sites.
>>I'm always looking for more points of view.
>>
>>I look at google news, rt and sputnik among others...what can you recommend?
>>I usually give up if I hit a paywall. (I wonder if there's "Usenet News"
>>somewhere....hmmm.)
>>
>>Pureheart in Aptos
>>
>>P.S.: "They" is plural.
>
> Lets see, many of commentators on CNN are apologists for trumpie. And
> some are not, hard to determine sometimes. I watch MSNBC, BBC America,
> local tv channels but they are misquoting politicians that are not far
> right.
>
> Mostly I watch Science channel for: 'Strange evidence', 'Mysteries of
> the Abandoned' and 'How the Universe vWorks'.
>
> Some on Facebook are okay, and some are raving loonies who claim there
> are things in various US documents I know arent there... I've read
> them.
> --
> Jim

Thank-you. I appreciate the feedback.

One of the websites I like to check a couple times a week is "scitechdaily
DOT com".

I come from a scientific background (but I'm really poor at math!) so it is
up my alley.

pH