 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Mild-Mannered Historian arrested
How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged English History Professor? This is worth reviewing purely as a Jolly Good Yarn, but there are couple of language points which come out if you watch the (rather long) entertaining interview with Armesto. http://hnn.us/articles/33409.html#Day3 He has the most nearly-perfect RP I have heard for a long time. It's worth studying. He also has the exactly correct mannerisms to go with it. And he mentions a Spanish Gypsy curse, which I hadn't heard before - something like "May you have many law suits and win them".  SignatureDavid ===== > How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged > English History Professor? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > worth studying. He also has the exactly correct mannerisms to go > with it. He is not an English History Professor but a Spanish History Professor, according to the AHA web site, i.e. his academic speciality is Spanish history and he has a wholly Spanish name. But it is amusing that he is so wholly Oxonized in both speech and gesture (after teaching there for decades). This is not an exceptional or freak change. One of my univ. teachers in 1961 was a chap fresh from Magdalen College Oxford of such pronounced Oxonian manners that we simply could not believe he had lived 20 years in Halifax, Nova Scotia, before winning a Rhodes scholarship. He later explained that (in the 1950s) "colonials" were so disdained at Oxford that they were allowed only to row or play ice hockey -- not to study seriously. In order to circulate among the Oxford philosophers of his day this student had to ape their speech and behavior. He transformed himself so completely as to raise many an eyebrow when his teaching career began in Edmonton, which was in those days practically the Wild West. Whether for professional advancement or personal taste Prof. Felipe Fernandez Armesto appears to have done this too. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > "the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message >> How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged >> English History Professor? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> worth studying. He also has the exactly correct mannerisms to go >> with it. > He is not an English History Professor but a Spanish > History Professor, according to the AHA web site, i.e. > his academic speciality is Spanish history and he has > a wholly Spanish name. But it is amusing that he is > so wholly Oxonized in both speech and gesture (after > teaching there for decades). He is a professor not at Oxford, but at Queen Mary, University of London, where I teach: http://www.history.qmul.ac.uk/staff/fernandez.html I have reason to believe that despute 17 years teaching at QMUL, my speech and gestures fall somehwat short of RP. Matthew Huntbach In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote: >> He is not an English History Professor but a Spanish >> History Professor, according to the AHA web site, i.e. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >He is a professor not at Oxford, but at Queen Mary, University of >London, where I teach: I think he was editor of History Today for a while. He still writes for it occasionally. >http://www.history.qmul.ac.uk/staff/fernandez.html > >I have reason to believe that despute 17 years teaching at QMUL, my >speech and gestures fall somehwat short of RP. Eat more plums. SignatureV d.phillipsonSPAMBLOCK@ncf.ca had it: > > How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged > > English History Professor? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > so wholly Oxonized in both speech and gesture (after > teaching there for decades). I meant that he is an English geezer, and that he's a History Professor. He was born in the UK, with a Spanish father. I didn't check to see what he professes. SignatureDavid ===== [...] > One of > my univ. teachers in 1961 was a chap fresh from Magdalen [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > career began in Edmonton, which was in those days > practically the Wild West. [...] That would explain an English-professor I heard lecture in Kingston. He was a good and thoroughly decent man and a recognised authority on the poetry of Coleridge. He was also the last person in the world one would suspect of pretentiousness; so it came as quite a shock to his students when they occasionally learned that he wasn't English. He got on the wrong side of Irving Layton once, having given some of his poems a bad review, and got this as a return gift: Anglo-Canadian A native of Kingston, Ont. -two grandparents Canadian and still living. His complexion florid as a maple leaf in late autumn, for three years he attended Oxford. Now his accent makes even Englishmen wince, and feel unspeakably colonial. > How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged > English History Professor? [snip] In this pic, it looks like seven uniformed cops and maybe one plainsclothesman: http://hnn.us/Pics/Fernandez%20arrest.jpg ("Make sure you put him on the ground and cuff his hands behind his back, and don't pay the least attention to that RP accent." He was thrown in a holding tank with felons of all sorts -- some possibly murder suspects -- and kept there for a day. Welcome to Bush country.) Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego > > How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged > > English History Professor? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > thrown in a holding tank with felons of all sorts -- some possibly > murder suspects -- and kept there for a day. Welcome to Bush country.) I'm reminded of my lack of understanding of the whole jay-walking business. Does the strict prohibition in some US cities actually make a difference to traffic flow? You do see some pretty silly attempts to cross the street here in Blighty, but I've never noticed it doing any harm. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged >>>English History Professor? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > cross the street here in Blighty, but I've never noticed it doing any > harm. The crackdown on jaywalking was one Mayor Giuliani's major offensives in crime-fighting in New York. The other one was to reduce the reporting of attempted break-ins, by requiring people to come to a precinct-house to report such incidents - which, of course, most people didn't bother to do. Fran >> I'm reminded of my lack of understanding of the whole jay-walking >> business. Does the strict prohibition in some US cities actually make a >> difference to traffic flow? > The crackdown on jaywalking was one Mayor Giuliani's major offensives in > crime-fighting in New York. It was a brief and failed experiment, I believe. Jaywalking is a daily habit for New Yorkers (LCDIA) and has been for decades. I'd guess that in New York I jaywalk several times a day. I resided for a time in Seattle (TFLCIA), which is one of those cities where jaywalking actually *is* an enforced crime -- supposedly. I say supposedly because I jaywalked plenty in downtown Seattle and its immediate environs and never got ticketed. A fellow who used to take the ferry (= WstrnUS "faery") to one of those islands in (the) Puget Sound told me that one time he got ticketed when running to the faery and jaywalking in the process. People warned me about how jaywalking was illegal in Seattle, but I never saw it enforced. I can't recall what the jaywalking situation in Chicago (TLCIA) was. SignatureSalvatore Volatile >>>I'm reminded of my lack of understanding of the whole jay-walking >>>business. Does the strict prohibition in some US cities actually make a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > habit for New Yorkers (LCDIA) and has been for decades. I'd guess that in > New York I jaywalk several times a day. Even with the new pay scales, they couldn't recruit enough police to arrest everyone in New York. > I resided for a time in Seattle (TFLCIA), which is one of those cities > where jaywalking actually *is* an enforced crime -- supposedly. I say [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I can't recall what the jaywalking situation in Chicago (TLCIA) was. I have wondered why jaywalking is a crime (or misdemeanor). In England, we didn't even have a word for it. I suppose it's because it's easier to arrest pedestrians, rather than people driving cars. Fran On 13 Jan 2007, Frances Kemmish wrote > I have wondered why jaywalking is a crime (or misdemeanor). Same here. Particularly when people are fined for it where there's no traffic, I can't think of a better example of "victimless crime". SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 13 Jan 2007, Frances Kemmish wrote > >> I have wondered why jaywalking is a crime (or misdemeanor). > >Same here. Particularly when people are fined for it where there's >no traffic, I can't think of a better example of "victimless crime". That's not really logical, Harvey. It's like saying that you needn't stop at a red light if there is no other traffic on the road. Something like this is either legal or illegal. There's a busy street in this area with shopping centers on both sides of the road. About once a month, it seems, someone is killed or injured walking across that road between intersections. That results in many victims...the person struck, the family of the person struck, and the driver who has to live with having killed someone. The most recent on that road: http://tinyurl.com/ybknvu It's only a victimless crime when nothing happens. The reason for the law is to prevent something from happening. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>On 13 Jan 2007, Frances Kemmish wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > It's only a victimless crime when nothing happens. The reason for the > law is to prevent something from happening. Maybe the law should make us all stay home with the doors locked. >>>On 13 Jan 2007, Frances Kemmish wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Maybe the law should make us all stay home with the doors locked. You wouldn't need to lock your doors if everybody stayed at home. SignatureRay UK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 1113 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! >>>>On 13 Jan 2007, Frances Kemmish wrote >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You wouldn't need to lock your doors if everybody stayed at home. And nobody ever gets hit by cars when they cross at the lights. Fran >>> On 13 Jan 2007, Frances Kemmish wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Maybe the law should make us all stay home with the doors locked. You had to say it out loud, didn't you? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford On 13 Jan 2007, Tony Cooper wrote >> On 13 Jan 2007, Frances Kemmish wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > needn't stop at a red light if there is no other traffic on the > road. Yes, it is. And whilst I'd always stop at a red light when there's no other traffic, running it would also be a victimless crime. FWIW, I've always admired the NAmer places that acknowleddge this by having lights change during the night from the normal sequence to a four-way flashing red/stop-sign operation. It recognises the silliness of making someone sit for a whole light sequence when nobody else is around. > Something like this is either legal or illegal. I didn't say it wasn't illegal. But whilst jaywalking when there's no traffic might be illegal, it's victimless. (I've snipped the bit about your busy road and accidents: by definition, jaywalking across a traffic-laden street doesn't qualify as a case "where there's no traffic".) > It's only a victimless crime when nothing happens. The reason > for the law is to prevent something from happening. It's also a victimless crime when it happens where, by definition, nothing *can* happen -- like on a road where there's no traffic. Enforcing the law in that situation doesn't "prevent" anything from happening: it was impossible for anything to happen. (And yes, that also goes for traffic lights when there's no other vehicles around: victimless crime. Illegal, but victimless.) SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 13 Jan 2007, Tony Cooper wrote > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >Enforcing the law in that situation doesn't "prevent" anything from >happening: it was impossible for anything to happen. Where are there roads with no traffic? I've seen roads with no traffic in sight, but it's hardly impossible for traffic to appear rather quickly. >(And yes, that also goes for traffic lights when there's no other >vehicles around: victimless crime. Illegal, but victimless.) The problem with your "victimless crime" theory is that, like the Spanish Inquisition, nobody expects the traffic to be there. The driver only assumes there's no other traffic. It's a victimless crime if he's right, and a bloody mess if he's wrong. I don't think your idea of a crime being victimless if nothing happens will fly in court. "It's a victimless crime, Your Honor. My gun misfired and no one was hurt". SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL On 13 Jan 2007, Tony Cooper wrote > I don't think your idea of a crime being victimless if nothing > happens will fly in court. ?? Of *course* it won't fly in court: it's illegal. But the fact that something's illegal doesn't mean there's a victim; nor does it mean that all illegal acts are equally logical candidates for prosecution regardless of the facts of the situation. > "It's a victimless crime, Your > Honor. My gun misfired and no one was hurt". OK; guns do misfire. For sake of argument, let's say that it was, in fact, illegal to have a gun misfire. If your gun misfired and no-one was hurt -- say when you were out hunting -- you could (if having a gun misfire was illegal) be prosecuted, and the court would have to find you guilty: even if no-one was hurt, it would still be a crime. But there would have been no victim, and -- like jaywalking across a straight road with no traffic in sight, or old guys getting busted for playing penny poker in the rest home for a pot worth a dollar -- it would, by definition, be a victimless crime. I'm not sure why the concept of "victimless crimes" and "pointless prosecutions" seems to unsettle you so. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 13 Jan 2007, Tony Cooper wrote > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >I'm not sure why the concept of "victimless crimes" and Because it's an oxymoron or something. The so-called "victimless crimes" are only victimless when there is no victim in that particular instance, but are not victimless when there is a victim. (That sentence is not as illogical as it may seem at first glance.) Prostitution is said, by some, to be a victimless crime. There can be a victim involved, though, if there is some direct and harmful result...STD, AIDS, or exposure. The jaywalker darting across the street is not a victim if they are successful in avoiding being struck, but there are victims when they are not successful. If the presence of a victim is contingent on the result, the crime cannot be considered victimless. >"pointless prosecutions" seems to unsettle you so. Wha? I didn't mention this at all. On the police arresting participants in a penny ante poker game...yes, it does seem silly. However, police don't seek out penny ante poker games. Someone - usually a wife who objects to her husband out having a bit of fun playing poker with the guys instead of staying home and cleaning out the garage - files a complaint about illegal gambling. The police are obligated to follow-up on any complaint. In most cases, the police issue warnings or just break up the game with a wink. When arrests are made, I suspect it's because some policeman who resents being sent out for such silliness gets tired of taking lip of the "Why aren't you out solving murders?" or "Do you know who I am? I'm a famous Professor of history." or "I pay your salary" sort. There's a traffic light near where I live that allows a left turn only on the green arrow. Late at night, when there's no traffic in view, I do blow through the intersection without waiting for the green. If I'm ever caught and ticketed, though, I'm not going to whine about being persecuted for a victimless crime. If I am caught, I wouldn't mind being thrown to the ground if it affords me a chance to meet Katie Couric. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL <snip> >On the police arresting participants in a penny ante poker game...yes, >it does seem silly. However, police don't seek out penny ante poker [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >know who I am? I'm a famous Professor of history." or "I pay your >salary" sort. In some parts of Murrica though, this discretionary power is abused - equal (consistent) justice for all becomes a pawn in the electoral system on which our democracy is built. Unlike a lot of civilised countries, we elect our servants charged with maintaining/applying the law, in the form of the Sherrif [1] and District Attorney - usualy at the county level. It therefore behooves an incumbent running for re-election to to establish his (or her) record for being "tough on crime" in the period running up to an election. Thus the pre-election season will suddenly see an increase in vigilance/prosecution of a lot of these sorts of "crimes" that are more usualy tolerated. Not just the office football pool, but dodgy massage parlors and so forth. Or the DA may opt to prosecute a crime where the evidence is so tenuous that it might otherwise have been skipped as "insufficient evidence". Just to make a point, boosting his image in the local press to electoral advantage. [1] For those not familiar with the Murrican system, an incorporated town or city will usualy have its own police force, headed by "the chief" - the latter usualy appointed by the Mayor or councilmen. But other (unincorporated) areas within the county have their own gendarmerie of sherrif's deputies, headed up by the sheriff himself. That guy (or gal in our case) is elected by residents of the county. We don't have an elected dog-catcher in our county, but I understand some others do. Then, some small towns who cannot afford or be arsed to set up their own police force, may opt to contract the function out to the county sherrif. Jitze >The police are obligated to follow-up on any complaint. In what jurisdiction is that? -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>The police are obligated to follow-up on any complaint. > >In what jurisdiction is that? Any jurisdiction in the US... SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > wollman@csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote: >>>The police are obligated to follow-up on any complaint. >> >>In what jurisdiction is that? > > Any jurisdiction in the US... OMG! He's back! Arrrrgggh! SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "If you are still not convinced of the a.s-brain connection, finish this sentence: 'It is easier to think after I … (a) get a haircut (b) take a dump'." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 12 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews now charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>The police are obligated to follow-up on any complaint. >> >>In what jurisdiction is that? > > Any jurisdiction in the US... Says who? SignatureSalvatore Volatile >>>>The police are obligated to follow-up on any complaint. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Says who? Ultimately, the US Supreme Court. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>>The police are obligated to follow-up on any complaint. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Ultimately, the US Supreme Court. OK, so if you go down to the local police station (=AmE: "precinct house" in cities, I think) and say, "Every night at precisely 4:17 a.m. space aliens abduct my cat and every morning when it returns it weighs 7 ounces less than it did the day before. This has been going on for a few months now so my cat now weighs approximately minus 57 pounds. I demand that you stake out my house and investigate this nightly violation of my inalienable right to possess a functional cat with positive mass or I'll take the matter to the Supreme Court," then the cops are obliged to follow up on it? Or by "follow up on" do you just mean "register and consign to the big round filing cabinet"? SignatureArchie Valparaiso >>>>>>The police are obligated to follow-up on any complaint. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Or by "follow up on" do you just mean "register and consign to the big >round filing cabinet"? I think you should try the above. Word it just as you have there. Or you can begin the conversation with "I want to complain..." or "I want to report..." Then, when it becomes obvious that someone is indeed going to consign you to the round file, change to a serious tone of voice and say "I want to file a complaint." Watch the change the officer goes through. If you sign a complaint, they *will* have to respond. (One possible response is to jail you for perjury, but we will assume from here forward that the silly example above is not indicative of how you act in real life.) And in fact, if you do the above in a serious case the effects are dramatic. A few years ago I became aware of a situation with a 75+ year old Korean man who was being given rubber checks by an employer, but when he went to the police they just didn't want to bother with it (dealing with the Korean community, with the cultural and language barriers, is not easy); so we went to the police together and the above "I want to file a complaint" was exactly what came up about 128 seconds into my discussion with the officer who had previously ignored the man. The officer literally scowled at me! He was well aware that he'd just been had by someone who knew precisely what was going on. But that ended the brush off, and started a criminal investigation. (Which resulted in a quick settlement, engineered by the investigating officer.) There often are two different routes that a citizen's complaint can take though. One is obviously if law enforcement itself has the authority to act directly from the complaint. But it might also be a requirement that the District Attorney (i.e., the office of the DA) first respond, and then pass it to law enforcement for action as required. The above of course assumes a complaint alleging criminal activity, as opposed to a civil complaint. Whatever, I suspect you are confusing a "complaint" with a request for assistance, which police are not required to respond to. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>>>The police are obligated to follow-up on any complaint. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >>Ultimately, the US Supreme Court. I see. The US Supreme Court has said that every police authority in the US is obligated to follow up on any complaint? What was the legal basis for such a ruling? SignatureSalvatore Volatile >>>>>>>The police are obligated to follow-up on any complaint. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the US is obligated to follow up on any complaint? What was the legal >basis for such a ruling? Rules of proceedure. The US Supreme Court ultimately is responsible for administration of the court system in the US, and clearly sets out what is acceptable or not. Whatever, again... it appears you are confusing a "complaint", which is a legal term for a charge or an indictment, with a police department's (very limited) responsibilities to respond to requests for assistance. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com [ ... ] > >I see. The US Supreme Court has said that every police authority in > >the US is obligated to follow up on any complaint? What was the legal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > responsible for administration of the court system in the US, > and clearly sets out what is acceptable or not. Yes and no. The Supreme Court applies the U.S. Constitution to acts of the states and their component jurisdictions. But issues that do not have federal constitutional implications are supposed to be left to the states.[1] I am unaware of any constitutional requirement that state and local police follow up every complaint filed with them, even using Floyd's formal definition of "complaint." So it's probably best to leave the Supremes out of this. > Whatever, again... it appears you are confusing a "complaint", > which is a legal term for a charge or an indictment, with a > police department's (very limited) responsibilities to respond > to requests for assistance. There is a clear distinction between a formal complaint and a general gripe. If Sal wasn't aware when he posted what Floyd replied to, let's hope he is now. But the issue does remain whether all those individual states and localities are all under legal compulsion to follow up every formal complaint. I don't know the answer to that one, nor do I have the energy to research it. Maybe wacky complaints get perfunctory follow-up and the follow-up may become so perfunctory that it's indistinguishable from zero. At that point we're into competing definitions once again, and I have no good answer. [1] Well, Congress can step in and impose requirements on states. The Supremes then get to decide whether the congressional enactment is consitutional. If it is, the statute is enforced and the states must comply. But I know of no federal statute mandating follow-up for every complaint formally filed with all state and local police forces. SignatureBob Lieblich Who'd love to see the follow-up on Portnoy's Complaint >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >using Floyd's formal definition of "complaint." So it's probably best >to leave the Supremes out of this. A complaint is the first step in moving something under the jurisdiction of the court. It *can't* be ignored. And yes, that is a constitutional issue. Due process, Habeas Corpus, etc. etc. As noted, it is part of the Rules of Proceedure, and the US Supreme Court has ultimate administrative authority. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com } Robert Lieblich <r_s_lieblich@yahoo.com> wrote: }>> }>> Salvatore Volatile <me@privacy.net> wrote: }> }>[ ... ] }> }>> >I see. The US Supreme Court has said that every police authority in }>> >the US is obligated to follow up on any complaint? What was the legal }>> >basis for such a ruling? }>> }>> Rules of proceedure. The US Supreme Court ultimately is }>> responsible for administration of the court system in the US, }>> and clearly sets out what is acceptable or not. }> }>Yes and no. The Supreme Court applies the U.S. Constitution to acts }>of the states and their component jurisdictions. But issues that do }>not have federal constitutional implications are supposed to be left }>to the states.[1] I am unaware of any constitutional requirement that }>state and local police follow up every complaint filed with them, even }>using Floyd's formal definition of "complaint." So it's probably best }>to leave the Supremes out of this. } } A complaint is the first step in moving something under the } jurisdiction of the court. It *can't* be ignored. And yes, } that is a constitutional issue. Due process, Habeas Corpus, } etc. etc. } } As noted, it is part of the Rules of Proceedure, and the US } Supreme Court has ultimate administrative authority. It *can't* be ignored? On legal issues I'm usually content to believe SalVo and Liebs, but the "*can't*" gets my programmer juices flowing. Let's say some nefarious organization discovers a way to file complaints by computer and files a billion of them one morning. You don't think they'll start ignoring them by, say, the seventeenth one? ObAUE: One "etc." per sentence is sufficient in English usage. Signaturerjv The people have the ultimate administrative authority. > >[ ... ] > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > As noted, it is part of the Rules of Proceedure, and the US > Supreme Court has ultimate administrative authority. We're drowning in terminology here, but no, the US Supreme Court has no administrative autority, ultimate or otherwise, over state courts, at least as I understand what is meant by "administrative authority" (and as I believe most other laywers would). More specifically, the US Supreme Court has no administrative authority over the procedures of state courts; the most it can do is review the constitutionality of a state rule of procedure, and that's very much a broad issue that admits for little fine-tuning. More specifically yet, the US Supreme Court is very unlikely ever to consider an issue involving the alleged failure of state or local police to follow up a formal complaint, the exception being a constitutional issue. It might be possible to get the Supremes' attention to a case alleging that the police discriminate systematically on racial grounds in deciding which complaints to process and how. But a simple demand that the police do more than they're doing, with no constitutional hook -- no way. Beyoud that, if it's all a matter of definition of terms -- and that's how it looks to me -- we're not going to make any progress. SignatureBob Lieblich Ante-ultimate Administrative Authority >>>>>>The police are obligated to follow-up on any complaint. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Or by "follow up on" do you just mean "register and consign to the big >round filing cabinet"? You actually want a serious answer? Define "follow up on". When the desk sargent (assuming that's who takes the complaint) receives such a complaint, he's obliged to follow up on the report with whatever actions he considers to be appropriate. In the case you describe, the appropriate "follow up" may be limited to writing up a brief report that so-and-so reported that.... If even that brief report is consigned to the drawer where they file all of the other reports like this, it's been followed up. "Follow up" doesn't mean sending the SWAT team out. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > >It's also a victimless crime when it happens where, by definition, > >nothing *can* happen -- like on a road where there's no traffic. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > traffic in sight, but it's hardly impossible for traffic to appear > rather quickly. Do you think it should be illegal to cross the road in the UK Manchester, say, (a large city with oodles of traffic) without using the crossing places provided? How does the average US citizen know if he's in a place with a "no jaywalking" law? I don't remember being arrested for crossing the road wherever I liked in Port Jervis, NY. SignatureDavid ===== >How does the average US citizen know if he's in a place with a "no >jaywalking" law? I don't remember being arrested for crossing the >road wherever I liked in Port Jervis, NY. It would be easier to know if one were in a place without such a law. In any case, the police are not obliged to respond. (In Boston, the fine for jaywalking is $1, so the police can't be bothered to enforce it. That's probably a good thing.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Manchester, say, (a large city with oodles of traffic) without using >the crossing places provided? I don't have an opinion other than if the City of Manchester decides that jaywalking should be illegal, then the citizens of Manchester and visitors to Manchester should observe the laws. If the City of Manchester feels that citizens and visitors are on their own in darting through the oodles, then that's fine with me. >How does the average US citizen know if he's in a place with a "no >jaywalking" law? I don't remember being arrested for crossing the >road wherever I liked in Port Jervis, NY. Generally, it's just something we know. We may not know if there is a law on the books, but we generally know if the law is enforced. There are signs, of course, but we generally ignore them unless we know that the law is enforced. Most larger cities have such laws on the books. Orlando has a no jay-walking law, but it's only enforced in the congested (1) downtown area at times when there are crowds out. The law doesn't say "No jay-walking on Orange Avenue", but it's generally known that the jay-walking prohibition is never enforced on neighborhood streets. When the law is enforced, it's usually just a policeman blowing a whistle at you or waving you back. Maybe a verbal warning. The people who are actually cited for jay-walking are usually only the ones who mouth off or ignore the cop. The ticket may be for jay-walking, but the offense is pissing off a cop who would rather do anything else except play crossing guard. I know this doesn't answer your question, but it's the best I can do. (1) Our downtown is busy during the day because of the banks and office buildings. It's busy at night because of the bars and clubs. The police may enforce jay-walking prohibitions at lunch time and late at night, and turn a blind-eye other times of the day. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > >Do you think it should be illegal to cross the road in the UK > >Manchester, say, (a large city with oodles of traffic) without using [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Manchester feels that citizens and visitors are on their own in > darting through the oodles, then that's fine with me. If it's against the law, then it's a crime; no discussion. But you seem to have the view that jaywalking in large cities is inherently dangerous and therefore merits a law to prohibit it. But Europe manages without such a law - I was interested to know if you think that it would be a good idea to have these laws in all large, congested cities. Incidentally, cities and towns in the UK can't make laws like this - it would have to be a national law. > >How does the average US citizen know if he's in a place with a "no > >jaywalking" law? I don't remember being arrested for crossing the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are signs, of course, but we generally ignore them unless we know that > the law is enforced. Most larger cities have such laws on the books. I really meant a person travelling away from his home state/city. If you visited Pittsburgh or Portland, for example, how would you find out if there were an anti-jaywalking law? SignatureDavid ===== > I really meant a person travelling away from his home state/city. If > you visited Pittsburgh or Portland, for example, how would you find > out if there were an anti-jaywalking law? Just nip over the road to the information kiosk and ask. SignatureRay UK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 1125 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! > I really meant a person travelling away from his home state/city. If > you visited Pittsburgh or Portland, for example, how would you find > out if there were an anti-jaywalking law? California Vehicle Code has: 21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard. (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway. 21955. Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk. That, of course, would apply to cities with traffic control provisions, but then, 21961. This chapter does not prevent local authorities from adopting ordinances prohibiting pedestrians from crossing roadways at other than crosswalks. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >Incidentally, cities and towns in the UK can't make laws like this - >it would have to be a national law. Cities and towns in the U.S. can only make such laws as a result of powers delegated to them by their respective states. >I really meant a person travelling away from his home state/city. If >you visited Pittsburgh or Portland, for example, how would you find >out if there were an anti-jaywalking law? You would not need to, since there is such a law on the books nearly everywhere. You would find out whether it is actively enforced by observing how the locals behave. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>Incidentally, cities and towns in the UK can't make laws like this - >>it would have to be a national law. > > Cities and towns in the U.S. can only make such laws as a result of > powers delegated to them by their respective states. You are correct, sir. >>I really meant a person travelling away from his home state/city. If >>you visited Pittsburgh or Portland, for example, how would you find >>out if there were an anti-jaywalking law? > > You would not need to, since there is such a law on the books nearly > everywhere. I'm not sure if that's true, but it might be. (Erk, check the North Dakota Code.) > You would find out whether it is actively enforced by > observing how the locals behave. Yes. For example, tourists who are in downtown Seattle for the first time generally learn somehow or other that Seattle supposedly enforces its anti-jaywalking laws there. It's a common topic of conversation. You also notice pedestrians stopping at red lights even though no traffic should prevent them from crossing the street. Actually, Seattle is something of a special case, because there is an odd sort of 'scolding' culture there. So a local might well go out of their way to inform a visitor that their jaywalking is not permitted. HSAT, I never saw Seattle cops enforce the jaywalking law during my time in Seattle, much of it spent in the downtown area, and I myself jaywalked plenty, though I was conscious of the possibility of enforcement. SignatureSalvatore Volatile "David": > If it's against the law, then it's a crime; no discussion. ObAUE: Discussion. Here, if it's against the Criminal Code, then it's a crime. Offenses against provincial and municipal laws (traffic violations, zoning violations, etc.) or other federal laws are not crimes. If prosecutable, they are classified as "quasi-criminal" offenses. A quick google turns up a statement that traffic violations are also quasi-criminal in New Jersey, so probably there are other US states where it's also true. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "The problem is that tax lawyers are msb@vex.net | amazingly creative." -- David Sherman My text in this article is in the public domain. [ ... ] > >It's also a victimless crime when it happens where, by definition, > >nothing *can* happen -- like on a road where there's no traffic. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > will fly in court. "It's a victimless crime, Your Honor. My gun > misfired and no one was hurt". [ ... ] First of all, it you perform conduct that some law criminalizes, you've committed a crime. Even in AUE, I think we can take so much as given.[1] Next, let's play law school and test a hypothetical. On Monday I approach the intersection of First and Main. I an driving east on First, and there is a stop sign at the corner. Main has no stop sign or other sign to slow or stop traffic there. I reach the intersection. I stop. I look both ways. I see no traffic coming in either direction on Main. I go through the intersection, arrive safely at the other side of Main, and continue on my way. No injury to anyone, no violation of any law. On Tuesday, I do not drive to or through the intersection of First and Main. Also on Tuesday, the city has a traffic light erected at that intersection. At 7:00 a.m. on Wednesday the signal is placed in operation. At 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday I approach the intersection on First, coming from the east. I stop for the red light. I look both ways. I see no traffic coming in either direction on Main. I go through tthe intersection without waiting for the light to change, arrive safely at the other side of Main, and continue on my way. No injury to anyone. But I know damned well that I was supposed to wait for the green, and I have no defense to a charge of violating the law. What differentiates the two examples? [abrupt transition alert] For whatever reason, the District of Columbia has most of its traffic lights cycle red an green 24/7. I've been on Capitol Hill at 3:00 a.m. and found myself sitting through what seemed interminable red cycles of traffic lights when mine was the only vehicle in operation within sight of the intersection. The temptation to bull on through was almost impossible to resist, but thoughts of the Romulan cloaking device used by most cop cars in the District kept me there until the light changed. My conduct had nothing to do with my personal safety or the Spanish Inquisition, nor was it premised on any moral qualms about violating the law -- I just didn't want to get caught and receive a ticket. If you gave me a written guarantee from the DC police that they wouldn't issue tickets to people who went through red traffic lights on Capitol Hill from 1 to 5 in the morning, I'd be through those lights in a flash. If a crime has no victim, it's victimless. Harvey seems to be talking about single instances, like one violation of one red light. Tony is talking about the pattern -- all violations of all red lights. Do anything long enough and someone will get hurt. But if I run a red light and no one sees and no one reacts and nothing happens, that's a victimless a crime as one can find -- as long as no one tries to extrapolate it to every single time anyone runs that light. Are we clear now? [1] ObQuibbles: Shooting someone is not necessarily a crime. Homicide is not necessarliy a crime. Manslaughter is a crime. Murder is a crime. The law does not criminalize all homicides. It does not criminalize justifiable homicide. When you do something that some law criminalizes, you commit a crime. Not, not. SignatureThe Liebs Who would have made a lousy law professor r_s_lieblich@yahoo.com had it: > For whatever reason, the District of Columbia has most of its traffic > lights cycle red an green 24/7. I've been on Capitol Hill at 3:00 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > traffic lights on Capitol Hill from 1 to 5 in the morning, I'd be > through those lights in a flash. I can't remember if you've ever mentioned driving in Europe. Here, all (for most values of "all") traffic lights stay on their red/amber/green cycles at all times. It's so normal that we don't think about having to stop at the red lights. I don't think I've ever seen anybody deliberately drive through a red light (other than "running" it). Nobody would toot their horn at you for stopping at the red light and waiting for it to change, no matter how deserted the road (actually, it's illegal [*] to sound your horn in a built-up area after 23:00, and also when stationary, unless to prevent an accident). There's a potentially victimless crime. Sounding your horn when stationary in a built-up area, where nobody else can hear you. * Strictly, it's not illegal in that there is no statute to prohibit it. But it's disallowed by the Highway Code, and failing to follow the provisions of the Highway Code renders one liable to prosecution for Driving Without Due Care And Attention. SignatureDavid ===== > There's a potentially victimless crime. Sounding your horn when > stationary in a built-up area, where nobody else can hear you. If nobody heard it, did the horn really sound? SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. "David": > I can't remember if you've ever mentioned driving in Europe. Here, > all (for most values of "all") traffic lights stay on their > red/amber/green cycles at all times. ... 3-aspect railway signals cycle red/yellow/green, but traffic lights go the other way. Toronto doesn't have traffic lights that go to flashing at night either, by the way. I think the decision was made around 1980 that there were so few lights where the traffic level was low enough to justify the change that it wasn't worthwhile doing it. People have said that lights go to flashing red at night. That's not the system I've encountered (before moving to Toronto). The way I know it is that one street is considered as the main street and gets a flashing yellow, which just meaning "caution". The cross street gets a flashing red, which is equivalent to a stop sign. If all four streets got flashing red, that would be equivalent to a 4-way stop, but would be confusing since nothing would distinguish it from the other meaning. (Whereas with an actual 4-way stop sign, you have the "4-WAY" or "ALL-WAY" plate under it.) > I don't think I've ever seen anybody deliberately drive through > a red light You haven't driven in Spain, then. > (other than "running" it). To me "running" a red light means driving through it whether deliberately or otherwise, so I'm not sure what distinction is being made here. (And, obAUE, "driving through a red light" means ... oh, heck, you know what it means.) SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "I shot a query into the net. msb@vex.net | I haven't got an answer yet..." --Ed Nather My text in this article is in the public domain. msb@vex.net had it: > "David": > > I can't remember if you've ever mentioned driving in Europe. Here, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 3-aspect railway signals cycle red/yellow/green, but traffic lights go > the other way. Yes, sorry, I was indicating the colours rather than the sequence. For the record, the UK traffic light sequence, which I had to learn for my Cycling Proficiency Badge in 1965, despite there being no traffic lights in our small Warwickshire town: Red Red & Amber Green Amber (back to Red) That is, we get a "get ready to go" signal of Red & Amber which lasts for about 2 seconds. > > I don't think I've ever seen anybody deliberately drive through > > a red light > > You haven't driven in Spain, then. Only in Catalonia, where the people aren't quite so Spanish. But I really meant in the UK. I can't say I've noticed anybody driving through red lights in Madrid. > > (other than "running" it). > > To me "running" a red light means driving through it whether deliberately > or otherwise, so I'm not sure what distinction is being made here. I drew a distinction between "running" - taking a chance and carrying on through an Amber light even though it may well go Red before you cross the line; and "driving through" - arriving at a Red light, looking around, deciding that it's perfectly safe to continue and then deliberately deciding to continue. In the former case, the driver could persuade himself that he was unlucky that the lights changed slightly faster than he expected. In the latter case, he could be in no doubt that he had chosen to drive through at Red. SignatureDavid ===== On 16 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote > Yes, sorry, I was indicating the colours rather than the > sequence. For the record, the UK traffic light sequence, which [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That is, we get a "get ready to go" signal of Red & Amber which > lasts for about 2 seconds. I'm used to that now, but it really surprised me when I first encountered it here. The lights I grew up with were often carefully positioned precisely to avoid giving any "get ready" hint to those waiting for the red to change to green. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: > On 16 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > to avoid giving any "get ready" hint to those waiting for the red to > change to green. Advanced Driving instruction in the UK tells you explicitly to look for the other lights changing to Amber so that you can be in gear and prepared to set off when your light goes green. You get a bad mark on the advanced test for "failing to make good progress". SignatureDavid ===== On 16 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote > harvey.news@ntlworld.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > get a bad mark on the advanced test for "failing to make good > progress". Yup; so I discovered. But when I learned to drive in Canada (Ontario, late 1960s), the instructions were 180 degrees the other way -- which is why they often positioned the lights so it was impossible to do that. I like the UK system, but it came a surprise to see something which I'd been taught was a bad habit being recommended as correct practice. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van Harvey Van Sickle: >>> The lights I grew up with were often carefully positioned >>> precisely to avoid giving any "get ready" hint to those waiting >>> for the red to change to green. > ... when I learned to drive in Canada (Ontario, late 1960s) ... Not true in the part of Ontario where I was living then -- the lights were positioned the same way they are now, so you could always see the ones for the cross street. The place on this continent where I've most often seen that *not* done is New York State. SignatureMark Brader | "Ever wonder why they call the screen a vacuum tube?" Toronto | -- Kent Paul Dolan msb@vex.net | "Because it's neither rare nor well done." | -- Peter Moylan, quoting ? >> Advanced Driving instruction in the UK tells you explicitly to >> look for the other lights changing to Amber so that you can be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I'd been taught was a bad habit being recommended as correct >practice. Do they still have IAM (Institute Advanced Motorists) in the UK? Many years ago when I took that test, you were dinged points if you had to overtly move your head around to look in the rear-view mirror(s). So later, when I had to take a test in Holland, I had carefully adjusted the mirrors so that I could see both with minimal head movement. I failed the test because the instructor claimed I never looked in the mirror. On re-test I made a big point of moving my head and excessive staring in the mirror - and I passed. Ancient Swahili proverb - to each dog his own sh.t smalls sweet. Jitze couperus-eschew-this@znet.com had it: > >> Advanced Driving instruction in the UK tells you explicitly to > >> look for the other lights changing to Amber so that you can be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Do they still have IAM (Institute Advanced Motorists) in the UK? They still have it - I have been a member since 1985. > Many years ago when I took that test, you were dinged points > if you had to overtly move your head around to look in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ancient Swahili proverb - to each dog his own sh.t smalls sweet. What are sh.t smalls? SignatureDavid ===== On 16 Jan 2007, the Omrud wrote > couperus-eschew-this@znet.com had it: >> Ancient Swahili proverb - to each dog his own sh.t smalls >> sweet. > What are sh.t smalls? Mouse droppings. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > couperus-eschew-this@znet.com had it: [...] >> Ancient Swahili proverb - to each dog his own sh.t smalls sweet. > > What are sh.t smalls? Dog underpants, of course: the nose knows. The dogs are ever so grateful ("sweet"). Ancient Romans didn't always use the copula either. >couperus-eschew-this@znet.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >What are sh.t smalls? Ah - I was a victim of the great vowel sh.t phenomenon. (sic) Should have been "smells", but I suspect you grokked that. Jitze >msb@vex.net had it: > >> "David": >> > I don't think I've ever seen anybody deliberately drive through >> > a red light [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >really meant in the UK. I can't say I've noticed anybody driving >through red lights in Madrid. Nor me. They mentally insert the word "Don't" before approaching any "STOP" sign, true enough, but traffic lights are generally respected. Although Spain's roads are over twice as dangerous as Britain's in terms of fatal accidents, there are amazingly few crunches in urban areas. I remember hearing far the squeal of brakes followed by a thud and tinkling of glass in London and Manchester than in Madrid or Barcelona, oddly enough. SignatureArchie Valparaiso >If a crime has no victim, it's victimless. Harvey seems to be talking >about single instances, like one violation of one red light. Tony is >talking about the pattern -- all violations of all red lights. Do >anything long enough and someone will get hurt. But if I run a red >light and no one sees and no one reacts and nothing happens, that's a >victimless a crime as one can find I see a difference between a "victimless crime" and a "crime without a victim". "Victimless crime" is used as a category, and people want to classify certain illegal actions in this category. That's one of the reasons I find the term inappropriate if not outright wrong. If there can be a victim in the category, it's not victimless. I'm perfectly willing to see certain instances of criminal acts described as a "crimes without victims", though. If you jaywalk without causing harm or being harmed, it's a crime without a victim. However, jaywalking is not a victimless crime. (The above, of course, assumes that there is some law in place prohibiting jaywalking.) SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL [ ... ] > I see a difference between a "victimless crime" and a "crime without a > victim". "Victimless crime" is used as a category, and people want to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > willing to see certain instances of criminal acts described as a > "crimes without victims", though. It's a deal. Of course, we won't know if the rest of AUE goes along until we hear from The Committee. SignatureBob Lieblich Who would apply for membership on The Committee if he knew where to sent his application >> I'm perfectly >> willing to see certain instances of criminal acts described as a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Of course, we won't know if the rest of AUE goes along until we hear > from The Committee. Truly. SignatureSalvatore Volatile > It's also a victimless crime when it happens where, by definition, > nothing *can* happen -- like on a road where there's no traffic. > Enforcing the law in that situation doesn't "prevent" anything from > happening: it was impossible for anything to happen. If there was nobody else around, there would be nobody to arrest you. > (And yes, that also goes for traffic lights when there's no other > vehicles around: victimless crime. Illegal, but victimless.) I recall one intersection in Melbourne where, late at night when there was little traffic, there was always one other vehicle: the police car hidden around the corner. It was a nice little money earner. In defence of the police, I have to say that I've seen plenty of situations where there was _apparently_ no traffic, and suddenly a car comes roaring out of nowhere. I've also been in the parallel situation of driving along an apparently empty road when some kids playing chicken jumped out from behind a bush to stand in the path of my car. I braked in time, but I would have left mashed hoon all over the road if I hadn't been paying attention. These days the majority of light-controlled intersections in Australia have traffic sensors before the lights, which means that if there's no other traffic the lights will change almost as soon as you arrive. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. [...] > I braked in time, but I would have left mashed hoon all over > the road if I hadn't been paying attention. I had to look up "hoon". To possibly save someone else the trouble, in Australian slang it's a noun (or a verb) meaning "(to behave like) a lout or an idiot" (_New Shorter Oxford_). > These days the majority of light-controlled intersections in Australia > have traffic sensors before the lights, which means that if there's no > other traffic the lights will change almost as soon as you arrive. I seem to remember hearing recently that there are some miscreants who have found out how to wirelessly make traffic lights change as soon as they arrive. I think it's a feature that has been provided to legitimately expedite the passage of an emergency vehicle (pronounced "vee ickle" in SalvatorE). > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "(to behave like) a lout or an idiot" (_New Shorter > Oxford_). I didn't have to look it up. The one at the top left in http://www.gayspermbank.com/brin/thesix.jpg is a hoon. Hoon (ab-Guthatsa-ul-Rousit)- Fifth of the exile races of Jijo. Described as horse-like, very patient seafarers and as musicians who are able to make musical tones (umbling) with their throat sacs. They have scaly chests, second bowels, generate adult spine on maturity, and possess a sacred heart bone. They came to Jijo because an Oracle told them they would find their lost birthright on a forbidden world. Those Hoon still in Galactic culture were prudish and inflexible bureaucrats in the service of many Institutions, and mortal enemies of the Urs. They do however dote on their children. http://www.gayspermbank.com/brin/species1.htm SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Algebra? But that's far too 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |difficult for seven-year-olds!" Palo Alto, CA 94304 | |"Yes, but I didn't tell them that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and so far they haven't found out," (650)857-7572 |said Susan. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > I seem to remember hearing recently that there are some > miscreants who have found out how to wirelessly make traffic > lights change as soon as they arrive. I think it's a > feature that has been provided to legitimately expedite the > passage of an emergency vehicle (pronounced "vee ickle" in > SalvatorE). A fellow in Longmont, CO, was ticketed a while back for using such a device-- which, apparently, cost him $100 on eBay. I imagine such things are similarly illegal elsewhere. -=Eric >> I seem to remember hearing recently that there are some >> miscreants who have found out how to wirelessly make traffic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > device-- which, apparently, cost him $100 on eBay. I imagine such > things are similarly illegal elsewhere. They certainly are in California: Vehicle Code 21464. (b) A person may not use, and a vehicle, other than an authorized emergency vehicle or a public transit passenger vehicle, may not be equipped with, any device, including, but not limited to, a mobile infrared transmitter, that is capable of sending a signal that interrupts or changes the sequence patterns of an official traffic control signal unless that device or use is authorized by the Department of Transportation pursuant to Section 21350 or by local authorities pursuant to Section 21351. (c) A person may not buy, possess, manufacture, install, sell, offer for sale, or otherwise distribute a device described in subdivision (b), including, but not limited to, a mobile infrared transmitter (MIRT), unless the purchase, possession, manufacture, installation, sale, offer for sale, or distribution is for the use of the device by a peace officer or other person authorized to operate an authorized emergency vehicle or a public transit passenger vehicle, in the scope of his or her duties. (d) Any willful violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) that results in injury to, or the death of, a person is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six months, and by a fine of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000). (e) Any willful violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) that does not result in injury to, or the death of, a person is punishable by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000). (f) The court shall allow the offender to perform community service designated by the court in lieu of all or part of any fine imposed under this section. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Politicians are like compost--they 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |should be turned often or they start Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to smell bad. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > These days the majority of light-controlled intersections in Australia > have traffic sensors before the lights, which means that if there's no > other traffic the lights will change almost as soon as you arrive. Yes, we have those in the UK too ... except when there is little or no traffic they will turn red as you approach. The argument is that it's necessary to slow vehicles down when the traffic is light to ensure the safety of all road users. And it doesn't need a hidden police car to catch you if you jump the red light because you will have your picture taken twice and then you will get a letter. The whole operation is untouched by human hand. Philip Eden >> It's also a victimless crime when it happens where, by definition, >> nothing *can* happen -- like on a road where there's no traffic. >> Enforcing the law in that situation doesn't "prevent" anything from >> happening: it was impossible for anything to happen. > >If there was nobody else around, there would be nobody to arrest you. Many intersections now have CCTV in the UK, and the cameras can register car number plates. I've seen an estimate that shows that London probably has more CCTV installed than the whole of the USA. SignatureRobin Herts, England >Many intersections now have CCTV in the UK, and the cameras can >register car number plates. I've seen an estimate that shows that >London probably has more CCTV installed than the whole of the USA. Hardly surprising to those who have been even vaguely following events. But we would call them "surveillance cameras". -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>Many intersections now have CCTV in the UK, and the cameras can >>register car number plates. I've seen an estimate that shows that >>London probably has more CCTV installed than the whole of the USA. > >Hardly surprising to those who have been even vaguely following >events. But we would call them "surveillance cameras". It's difficult not to follow this in some cases. A local city, Lake Mary, created a budget to put in CCTV cameras at certain intersections. There was a lengthy and much-publicized battle over this. The objections were that the results obtained would violate the right of privacy of the drivers by revealing that some men might be captured on film in the car with women not their wives and then blackmailed by city employees having access to the film. All the men interviewed on this subject started out their objection by saying "Not that it would be a problem for me, but...". The cameras have not been installed. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > It's difficult not to follow this in some cases. A local city, Lake > Mary, created a budget to put in CCTV cameras at certain [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > All the men interviewed on this subject started out their objection by > saying "Not that it would be a problem for me, but...". The vast majority of UK traffic cameras record the back of the car - it's not possible to see who is driving or even if there is a passenger at all what with high head rests. If the owner honestly cannot say who was driving then the case has to be dropped for lack of a culprit. CCTV is different in UK parlance - it films street scenes, either passively or under control of a live human. Traffic cameras take paired snapshots with timings. SignatureDavid ===== > >On 13 Jan 2007, Frances Kemmish wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > It's only a victimless crime when nothing happens. The reason for the > law is to prevent something from happening. Well, it sure worked in your example. (OK, that's an unfair crack if "unorthodox" crossing isn't illegal in the place you describe.) SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > The most recent on that road: http://tinyurl.com/ybknvu That sort of report can be seen in just about any newspaper in any city. The "baby in oven" story was a new one on me, though. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. > On 13 Jan 2007, Frances Kemmish wrote > >> I have wondered why jaywalking is a crime (or misdemeanor). > > Same here. Particularly when people are fined for it where there's > no traffic, I can't think of a better example of "victimless crime". Actually, as I understand it, jaywalking doesn't even rise to the dignity of a misdemeanor in this jurisdiction; it's a "violation", like most other non-serious traffic infractions. Among other things, this means that you can plead guilty and pay the fine (or forfeit bail, however it works) without creating a criminal record to besmirch your good name. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >On 13 Jan 2007, Frances Kemmish wrote > >> I have wondered why jaywalking is a crime (or misdemeanor). > >Same here. Particularly when people are fined for it where there's >no traffic, I can't think of a better example of "victimless crime". Please don't give the "unfit for purpose" Home Office and the Chancellor any bright ideas for new fines and crimes. Severe fines for relatively trivial offences are the new stealth taxes. SignatureRobin Herts, England > I have wondered why jaywalking is a crime (or misdemeanor). In Seattle, and I believe also in New York, and probably other places, it's considered a matter of protecting the jaywalker from causing harm to himself. SignatureSalvatore Volatile >> I have wondered why jaywalking is a crime (or misdemeanor). > > In Seattle, and I believe also in New York, and probably other places, > it's considered a matter of protecting the jaywalker from causing > harm to himself. Well, there's also the relief possibilities for the driver to consider. I mean, it's a jungle out there, and watching out for darting pedestrians at every inch of the roadway is a bit much to be demanded of them. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > I have wondered why jaywalking is a crime (or misdemeanor). In > England, we didn't even have a word for it. I suppose it's because > it's easier to arrest pedestrians, rather than people driving cars. The first time I ever saw jaywalking treated as a crime was in Honolulu, on my first visit to the USA. (On that occasion I didn't make it as far as the mainland.) The area was packed with tourists, keeping to the correct paths as required, when a man crossed the road in the wrong place. Immediately a copy pulled the gun from his holster and set out in hot pursuit. It terrified me. That was also the first time I'd seen a cop with a gun. Unfortunately, that particular aberration has by now reached our own shores. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >> I have wondered why jaywalking is a crime (or misdemeanor). In >> England, we didn't even have a word for it. I suppose it's because [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > road in the wrong place. Immediately a copy pulled the gun from his > holster and set out in hot pursuit. It terrified me. I suspect that either you are embellishing the story or the man being chased had done a hell of a lot more than cross the street illegally. If the cop hadn't actually seen him commit a crime, he would probably have to have been on the lookout for someone matching the description who was "armed and considered dangerous". Police here have to file a report every time they draw their weapon, justifying the need for doing so. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If a bus station is where a bus 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |stops, and a train station is where Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a train stops, what does that say |about a workstation? kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Police here have to file a report every time they > draw their weapon, justifying the need for doing so. Quite so. The Supreme Court is in charge of this, as I understand it. Signaturerzed > I can't recall what the jaywalking situation in Chicago (TLCIA) was. Unless it's changed a lot, much like in Manhattan. Since moving away from Chicago, I've only been to Manhattan once (in 2003), but I was struck by the fact that it was the first place I'd been since leaving where people apparently knew how to cross a street. And drivers knew that people knew how to cross a street, so everything flowed smoothly, at least with respect to pedestrians. (Someone really ought to tell New Yorkers that the way they use their horns at other drivers is senseless; the other drivers simply don't care.) In Chicago, you learned to jaywalk pretty much as soon as you could walk, holding your mother's hand as she led you halfway across the busy street to stand in the middle and wait for the traffic to pass so that you could finish crossing. And the drivers knew that she knew what she was doing, so they didn't bother slowing down. How did they know she knew what she was doing? In Chicago, if you were over the age of about six or seven and you got hit by a car, all your friends *laughed* at you. Then I moved out to the Bay Area, where neither drivers nor pedestrians have a clue about crossing a street. My freshman year, a group of us were in San Francisco for a play, and we were waiting to cross a street (at a light). There was a break in traffic, and a housemate (a New Yorker) and I, without thinking about it, started across. The rest of my dorm stared at us and decided, just too late, to follow, with the resulting screeching tires and such, which we watched from the opposite curb. At Stanford, I ran into cars several times, jaywalking from my dorm toward the middle of campus to go to class. I would look up, gauge the speed of the oncoming car, and adjust my speed so that I would pass behind it. The driver would either panic and come to a screeching halt or slow down enough that I, no longer paying much attention, would need to stop before I ran into the back of the car. One time, Susan and I stepped off the curb on El Camino (in a crosswalk) to look out around a van just to see what traffic was doing. Three lanes of traffic in each direction and the car turning right onto the street came to a sudden halt. Even now, I'm frustrated by the fact that drivers around here don't learn to recognize the pedestrian pasture that says "I've seen you, and if you just continue I'll pass behind you", which allows you to cross the street without actually stopping. So they'll insist on stopping, even if I'm not even at the curb yet. And then glare at me for holding them up because I don't hurry across the street. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |barbarian and thinks that the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |customs of his tribe and island are |the laws of nature. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | George Bernard Shaw http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >[...] One time, Susan and I stepped off the curb on El > Camino (in a crosswalk) to look out around a van just to see what > traffic was doing. Three lanes of traffic in each direction and the > car turning right onto the street came to a sudden halt. Well, it's the California law that makes them react. Your frustration has not been taken into account. Coming to a complete stop can be overreacting in some cases. 21950. (c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. 21951. Whenever any vehicle has stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > In Chicago, you learned to jaywalk pretty much as soon as you could > walk, holding your mother's hand as she led you halfway across the > busy street to stand in the middle and wait for the traffic to pass so > that you could finish crossing. And the drivers knew that she knew > what she was doing, so they didn't bother slowing down. How did they > know she knew what she was doing? One difference between Chicago and New York is that, in similar-density neighborhoods, Chicago has a lot more stop signs. There were some parts of Chicago where it seemed that there was a stop sign at *every* intersection of a residential neighborhood. I recall that Murr once suggested here that that had something to do with corrupt ward politics, but I didn't quite understand. > In Chicago, if you were over the > age of about six or seven and you got hit by a car, all your friends > *laughed* at you. Actually, I now recall that during my first time in Chicago I was in a car where the driver (a college friend of mine) almost hit a kid who had suddenly run into the street. SignatureSalvatore Volatile In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: >Then I moved out to the Bay Area, where neither drivers nor >pedestrians have a clue about crossing a street. 'Twas ever thus. <http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/papr:@field(NUMBER+@band(lcm p003+01142s3))> SignatureV Evan Kirshenbaum wrote, in <fyactdgt.fsf@hpl.hp.com> on Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:19:14 -0800: > Even now, I'm frustrated by the fact that drivers around here don't > learn to recognize the pedestrian pasture that says "I've seen you, > and if you just continue I'll pass behind you", which allows you to > cross the street without actually stopping. So they'll insist on > stopping, even if I'm not even at the curb yet. And then glare at me > for holding them up because I don't hurry across the street. They are living in a Euclidian world. You and I inhabit a Newtonian one. SignatureNick Spalding I remember with great amusement an experience I had a long time ago with jaywalking in Basel (Switzerland). While I was crossing the street, a heavy hand fell on my shoulder from behind me and seized it. Automatically, my elbow shot back into the assaulter's belly, who, I then discovered with surprise, was a fat policeman. He was as surprised as I was, merely looked at me reproachfully without uttering a single word, and let me finish crossing the street. The fact is, he had no right to assault me, and he very well knew it. CW In alt.usage.english, Claude Weil wrote: >I remember with great amusement an experience I had a long time ago >with jaywalking in Basel (Switzerland). While I was crossing the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >a single word, and let me finish crossing the street. The fact is, he >had no right to assault me, and he very well knew it. A fat Swiss policeman? Surely not! A Swiss businessman (import-export, very shady, out of his head on pot and the fumes from an indescribably foul-smelling Egyptian meatloaf) once told me that all Swiss policeman can run a four-minute mile and that they must have black belts in karate and all sort of other unlikely qualifications. Don't tell me he was pulling my leg. SignatureV >In alt.usage.english, Claude Weil wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >and all sort of other unlikely qualifications. Don't tell me he was >pulling my leg. There are several possibilities: 1. Your acquaintance was indeed pulling your leg. 2. Basel is an exception. 3. The demands made on policemen were not as strict at the time (in the mid-sixties) as they are now. CW >In alt.usage.english, Claude Weil wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >and all sort of other unlikely qualifications. Don't tell me he was >pulling my leg. Perhaps there was a translation glitch and rather than Swiss cops he was talking about the Swiss Guards. To make up for having to dress like extras in an am-dram panto most of them lads are harder than a deep-frozen gobstopper.[1] [1. In the original German, *göbschtopper*.] SignatureArchie Valparaiso In alt.usage.english, Archie Valparaiso wrote: >Perhaps there was a translation glitch and rather than Swiss cops he >was talking about the Swiss Guards. To make up for having to dress >like extras in an am-dram panto most of them lads are harder than a >deep-frozen gobstopper.[1] No, it was definitely the police. I believe he had a professional reason for knowing the professional capacities of Swiss policemen and unless he was shipping auto parts (or whatever it was) to the Vatican he wouldn't have had a similar interest in the professional capacities of the Swiss Guards. >[1. In the original German, *göbschtopper*.] What is the function of the umlaut in Lembit "Cheeky Bøy" Öpik's name? Does it just tell the world that the O is long? SignatureV >In alt.usage.english, Archie Valparaiso wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >have had a similar interest in the professional capacities of the Swiss >Guards. Have you considered the possibility that he was an international hit man? He might have been very familiar with the panto crew's capacities in that case, as past employers.[1] >>[1. In the original German, *göbschtopper*.] > >What is the function of the umlaut in Lembit "Cheeky Bøy" Öpik's name? >Does it just tell the world that the O is long? Perhaps he's just a Mötley Crue fan. [1. Hi, Matthew!] SignatureArchie Valparaiso In alt.usage.english, Archie Valparaiso wrote: >On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:43:55 +0000, Vinny Burgoo <hnNULh@yahoo.co.uk> >Have you considered the possibility that he was an international hit >man? Yes. And next time I mention him, that's what he'll be. >He might have been very familiar with the panto crew's capacities >in that case, as past employers.[1] Really? Were they behind the Mystery of the Dangling Banker, then? >>What is the function of the umlaut in Lembit "Cheeky Bøy" Öpik's name? >>Does it just tell the world that the O is long? > >Perhaps he's just a Mötley Crue fan. Wørd! SignatureV >What is the function of the umlaut in Lembit "Cheeky Bøy" Öpik's name? >Does it just tell the world that the O is long? It seems to be pretty much as in German. At least, that's how I've heard his grandfather pronounced. David In alt.usage.english, dcw wrote: >In article <g+V7wYM77KsFFwJJ@shropshire.plus.com>, >>What is the function of the umlaut in Lembit "Cheeky Bøy" Öpik's name? >>Does it just tell the world that the O is long? > >It seems to be pretty much as in German. At least, that's how I've >heard his grandfather pronounced. But isn't the umlauted German O pronounced like the U in "hurt"? I've only ever heard Owe-pik, not Ur-pik. SignatureV >In alt.usage.english, dcw wrote: >>In article <g+V7wYM77KsFFwJJ@shropshire.plus.com>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >But isn't the umlauted German O pronounced like the U in "hurt"? I've >only ever heard Owe-pik, not Ur-pik. Maybe he's inherited the spelling but not the pronunciation; that's pretty common. David > What is the function of the umlaut in Lembit "Cheeky Bøy" Öpik's name? Does > it just tell the world that the O is long? It's an Estonian name, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_alphabet tells you that o-umlaut is one of the letters in the Estonian alphabet. There is also a-umlaut and u-umlaut, and they seem to have been introduced with the intention of marking the same sounds as they do in German, although unlike in German they are considered as separate letters and not as an alternative to the un-umlauted letter followed by 'e'. Matthew Huntbach On 19 Jan 2007, Vinny Burgoo wrote > What is the function of the umlaut in Lembit "Cheeky Bøy" Öpik's > name? Does it just tell the world that the O is long? I always have trouble seeing that hon.member's surname without thinking of ookpik. Lembit kinda' looks like an owl, too, which doesn't help... SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van In alt.usage.english, HVS wrote: >On 19 Jan 2007, Vinny Burgoo wrote >> What is the function of the umlaut in Lembit "Cheeky Bøy" Öpik's >> name? Does it just tell the world that the O is long? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Lembit kinda' looks like an owl, too, which doesn't help... It seems that the original Estonian spelling of his surname was the even more owlish Ööbik (though owlish only in appearance: it actually means nightingale). SignatureV >In alt.usage.english, Archie Valparaiso wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >What is the function of the umlaut in Lembit "Cheeky Bøy" Öpik's name? >Does it just tell the world that the O is long? The O represents the Earth. The dots represent asteroids and meteors. This is a reference to the family business. Putting that to one side: the name is Estonian. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_language Estonian belongs to the Finnic branch of the Finno-Ugric languages. Estonian is thus closely related to Finnish, spoken on the other side of the Gulf of Finland, and is one of the few languages of Europe that is not Indo-European. Despite some overlaps in the vocabulary due to borrowings, in terms of its origin, Estonian is not related to its nearest neighbours, Swedish, Latvian and Russian, which are all Indo-European languages. ... Alphabet The vowels Ä, Ö and Ü are, unlike in German, clearly separate phonemes and inherent in Estonian, although the letter shapes come from German. The letter õ denotes IPA /?/, unrounded /o/, or a mid, back, unrounded vowel. (It has a different sound from the same letter in Portuguese. It is similar to the Russian ?, Turkish ? and the Vietnamese o+.) SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >Putting that to one side: the name is Estonian. I seem to be 10 hours behind with that reply. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) In alt.usage.english, Peter Duncanson wrote: >>Putting that to one side: the name is Estonian. >> >I seem to be 10 hours behind with that reply. I didn't get it on Plusnet. I've just requested it. Here it is. I think you are referring to power-gliding, no? SignatureV >In alt.usage.english, Peter Duncanson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I didn't get it on Plusnet. I issued a Cancel message a few seconds after sending it. >I've just requested it. > >Here it is. > >I think you are referring to power-gliding, no? If Jaques Derrida, Deconstructionist-General, was right, then I as the author might not have known the meaning of what I wrote and that you could read into it almost anything you care [to]. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) In alt.usage.english, Peter Duncanson wrote: >On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 00:03:00 +0000, Vinny Burgoo >>I think you are referring to power-gliding, no? > >If Jaques Derrida, Deconstructionist-General, was right, then I as >the author might not have known the meaning of what I wrote and that >you could read into it almost anything you care [to]. But is that what his words really meant? SignatureV >In alt.usage.english, Peter Duncanson wrote: >>On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 00:03:00 +0000, Vinny Burgoo [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >But is that what his words really meant? Good question. In one of his books Steven Pinker addressed this matter, briefly. He wrote something along the lines of "Derrida says ...blah,blah,blah. So we can safely ignore him". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> In alt.usage.english, Peter Duncanson wrote: >>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 00:03:00 +0000, Vinny Burgoo [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > matter, briefly. He wrote something along the lines of "Derrida says > ...blah,blah,blah. So we can safely ignore him". I have a nagging thought that AJP Taylor was once in televisual debate with M. Derrida and sprang up at one point in agitation crying "Mais, Monsieur, vous vous foutez de nous." SignatureJohn Dean Oxford In alt.usage.english, Peter Duncanson wrote: >On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:55:37 +0000, Vinny Burgoo >>In alt.usage.english, Peter Duncanson wrote: >>>If Jaques Derrida, Deconstructionist-General, was right, then I as >>>the author might not have known the meaning of what I wrote and that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >matter, briefly. He wrote something along the lines of "Derrida says >...blah,blah,blah. So we can safely ignore him". Good man, that Pinker. (But do I really mean that?) [cue Strange Music] SignatureV Or is it Not Strange Music? (It's French, anyway, of that you can be sure.) >> > How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged >> > English History Professor? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >cross the street here in Blighty, but I've never noticed it doing any >harm. Well, yeah, it does. A the time of the incident, there were probably several cars and shuttle buses trying to negotiate the street. Enough traffic to justify a policeman stationed at the intersection to direct traffic. The cop was probably there because the convention center management requested or hired officers to maintain some order. The police don't automatically send officers to direct traffic. The Professor admits that the policeman blew his whistle and waved him back, but the Professor wasn't sure that the person doing so had the authority to do so. Evidently, the Professor feels that just any old Atlantan dressed in blue and packing a gun is the boss of him. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > The Professor admits that the policeman blew his whistle and waved him > back, but the Professor wasn't sure that the person doing so had the > authority to do so. Evidently, the Professor feels that just any old > Atlantan dressed in blue and packing a gun is the boss of him. Did you mean what you wrote, or did you leave out a "not" somewhere? SignatureSkitt Jus' checkin' >>> How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged >>> English History Professor? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > cross the street here in Blighty, but I've never noticed it doing any > harm. My father is a former pilot with Qantas. Apparently once when he was in LA, he was stopped by a cop for jaywalking. After uttering one sentence, he was asked 'Are you Air New Zealand"? I should add that this happened at a place close to the airport. Stupot > I'm reminded of my lack of understanding of the whole jay-walking > business. Does the strict prohibition in some US cities actually make a > difference to traffic flow? You do see some pretty silly attempts to > cross the street here in Blighty, but I've never noticed it doing any > harm. A good rule of thumb is "if you see bunches of dead flowers tied to the railings, that's not a good place to cross when the little man is red but you can't see any cars coming". Matthew Huntbach >> How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged >> English History Professor? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >thrown in a holding tank with felons of all sorts -- some possibly >murder suspects -- and kept there for a day. Welcome to Bush country.) If you can count seven uniformed cops, then how come the Professor claims that he didn't realize the man in blue directing traffic and blowing the whistle at him was a cop? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged >>> English History Professor? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > claims that he didn't realize the man in blue directing traffic and > blowing the whistle at him was a cop? Apparently the guy was wearing a bomber jacket over his uniform. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>> How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged >>>> English History Professor? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Apparently the guy was wearing a bomber jacket over his uniform. Yes, I heard that. Bomber jackets are standard police uniform issue in colder weather. They're short and allow access to the holster, handcuffs, and all that other stuff policemen wear around their waist. Police issue bomber jackets have police patches on the arms just like the patches you see on the shirts in the photos. A policeman on duty in uniform doesn't wear a jacket without patches or a badge. He would be out-of-uniform and subject to disciplinary action. The Professor said he didn't see a *name* badge, but not that he didn't see a police badge. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>>>> How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged >>>>> English History Professor? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > said he didn't see a *name* badge, but not that he didn't see a police > badge. Did he say how familiar he was with the heraldry of US Police badges? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford Tony Cooper and John Dean write: >>>> If you can count seven uniformed cops, then how come the Professor >>>> claims that he didn't realize the man in blue directing traffic and >>>> blowing the whistle at him was a cop? >>> Apparently the guy was wearing a bomber jacket over his uniform. >> Yes, I heard that. Bomber jackets are standard police uniform issue in >> colder weather. ... >> Police issue bomber jackets have police patches on the arms just like >> the patches you see on the shirts in the photos. ... > Did he say how familiar he was with the heraldry of US Police badges? Someone in another newsgroup said the jacket also had POLICE on it in large letters. Having read several accounts of this incident, my take is that it was a simple case of stubborn bloody-mindedness on both sides. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "Logic is logic. That's all I say." msb@vex.net -- Oliver Wendell Holmes >Tony Cooper and John Dean write: >>>>> If you can count seven uniformed cops, then how come the Professor [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Having read several accounts of this incident, my take is that it was a >simple case of stubborn bloody-mindedness on both sides. That was my first impression. It was certainly a situation that escalated to the ridiculous, but the Professor's claim that he didn't recognize that the man in the uniform, gun belt, and badge who was directing traffic and blowing a whistle was a policeman is not believable. Perhaps he was distracted, but it's more likely that he just assumed that if he kept walking that the policeman would not do anything. It's not like a Professor at Tufts is unaware of what a policeman looks like even if he is unfamiliar with the shape of the Atlanta police badge. Co incidently, I was watching an episode of _NY-Lon_ on BBCA last night. A scene showed some NYC policemen in bomber jackets. They were instantly identifiable as policemen. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL In alt.usage.english, Mark Brader wrote: >Tony Cooper and John Dean write: >>> Yes, I heard that. Bomber jackets are standard police uniform issue in >>> colder weather. ... >>> Police issue bomber jackets have police patches on the arms just like >>> the patches you see on the shirts in the photos. ... Who is that cetacean in the white shirt? Has Frank Cannon come out of retirement? >> Did he say how familiar he was with the heraldry of US Police badges? > >Someone in another newsgroup said the jacket also had POLICE on it in >large letters. But should he have been wearing it? The Atlanta Constitution Journal says that Leonpacher ... was working a part-time job that day -- with police consent, his superiors confirmed -- for the Hilton Hotel, trying to direct pedestrians to use crosswalks. And even if Georgia law allows a police officer to wear his uniform when working as a lollipop man, is it legal to arrest (and assault) someone for Failure to Obey a Police Officer and Physical Obstruction of Police when the alleged disobeyee-cum-obstructee didn't have his policeman hat on at the time (even if he had his policeman's hat on)? >Having read several accounts of this incident, my take is that it was a >simple case of stubborn bloody-mindedness on both sides. "Can you prove your bona fides?" said a limey to a cop. "There's a lecture starting shortly. This is dreadfully de trop." "De tro'," replied the copper. "That P is not expressed. And can't you see word 'Police' emblazoned on my vest?" "Which vest is this?" said Sweet F-A. "I only see a jerkin. And my 'de trop' was jocular, you humourless Amerkin." With this, the supercilious gent stepped out into the road - And tum te tum te tum te tum te tum te tum te toad SignatureV >In alt.usage.english, Mark Brader wrote: >>Tony Cooper and John Dean write: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >when the alleged disobeyee-cum-obstructee didn't have his policeman hat >on at the time (even if he had his policeman's hat on)? Georgia may be different, but I doubt it. In Florida any organization can hire an off-duty policeman for security or traffic control purposes. The policeman works in uniform, carries a gun, and retains his police authorization to arrest or otherwise enforce the law. In most police departments a policeman is considered to be "on duty" 24 hours a day and authorized to act in that capacity at all times. The idea of hiring off-duty police is that the organization is providing a police officer, but the cost is borne by the organization and not the city. The organization applies to the city in order to hire the officers, pays a fee to the city, and the city assigns officers from a pool of officers who are willing to work extra hours. Every Sunday morning off-duty police officers direct traffic outside of many large churches in the area. Every sporting event or convention facility hires off-duty policemen for traffic and crowd control. The city may assign officers to a sporting event or convention, but the event managers may feel that more officers are needed than the city will provide. As you can probably sense, I am in sympathy with the police officer in this case. Not for what might have been an over-reaction or what might have been an over-enthusiastic arrest procedure, but for the arrest itself. I don't see how a mild-mannered history Professor is exempt from refusing to obey a police officer's instructions. I don't like the idea that mild-mannered history Professors feel that the law does not pertain to them. I don't like the arrogance of someone who describes a policeman as a rather "intrusive" young man. I admit to reading between the lines on this, but I suspect that the mild-mannered history Professor was not so mild in the actual confrontation. Even short-tempered Atlanta policemen don't throw people to the ground who mildly say "Right-O, Officer" and stop trying to cross where they are not supposed to cross. The Professor is the winner in this case. The cop will be the brunt of jokes in the station and police policy will not allow him to tell his side of the story to the public. The Professor will be able to dine out on the story for years to come. He's already had his moment of fame in the videotaped interviews, and will probably get several other TV appearances as a result of this. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > The idea of hiring off-duty police is that the organization is > providing a police officer, but the cost is borne by the organization [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > convention, but the event managers may feel that more officers are > needed than the city will provide. Some variety of that is true in the UK. As I understand it, private functions which require significant policing get the correct number of uniformed police for crowd control or whatever, but have to pay for the presence inside private property. It's the local authority's responsibility to police the streets, no matter what is causing a large number to congregate, but the officers inside a stadium or concert venue, for example, have to be paid for by the football club. But I suspect they would have to negotiate about how much is necessary - it's the responsibility of the Chief Constable to maintain order in his county. And I am certain that they remain under the instruction of the police hierarchy at all times - I don't think there's any mechanism to hire an officer to be under your own control. All UK police officers have all their powers at all times throughout the entire country (although some powers refer only to a "constable in uniform" and so would not be relevant to an off-duty policeman out shopping). I don't believe there are any churches within 200 miles of me which might require any form of crowd control, unless it's throwing people in. SignatureDavid ===== > tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: [...] > > Every Sunday morning off-duty police officers direct traffic outside > > of many large churches in the area. [...] > > I don't believe there are any churches within 200 miles of me which > might require any form of crowd control, unless it's throwing people > in. Both mental images are absolutely delightful: many thanks to David for providing the second. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On 13 Jan 2007, Mike Lyle wrote >> tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > [...] [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Both mental images are absolutely delightful: many thanks to > David for providing the second. A better illustration of that particular pondian cultural divide would be difficult to find.... SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 13 Jan 2007, Mike Lyle wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >A better illustration of that particular pondian cultural divide >would be difficult to find.... I was out of town yesterday and unable to provide photographic evidence of this. Not too far from me is a large church with a parking lot that is across the street from the church. The church hires an off-duty police officer to direct traffic and allow the people (200 or so at a service) attending the church service to cross the street from their cars to the church or vice-versa. The officer will hold up oncoming traffic to allow pedestrians to cross the street. This uniformed officer (complete with gun belt) leaves his official police vehicle parked beside the road with the bubble lights flashing to help bring attention to the presence of a traffic-directing officer. The officer is a Seminole County policeman, and county policemen take their cars home with them when off-duty. In this case, the need for a person directing traffic is partially based on the need to cross the road on foot to get to the parking lot. If the parking lot was on the same side of the street as the church, the need would be for cars to exit the parking lot into on-coming traffic. The road is a fairly busy one, and the church is not located at an intersection. This - the traffic directing at churches - is a fairly common practice here. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL On 15 Jan 2007, Tony Cooper wrote >> On 13 Jan 2007, Mike Lyle wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > vice-versa. The officer will hold up oncoming traffic to allow > pedestrians to cross the street. -snip- > This - the traffic directing at churches - is a fairly common > practice here. I'm sure that's the case, which was what I was getting at: David's point (as I'm sure you're aware) is that there simply aren't enough people who go to church here to cause a traffic problem. Our town's main Catholic church is at the bottom of our road, and they've recently relocated to a suburban site because of traffic and parking problems -- but those were due to a total lack of parking spaces in a residential area near the town centre. (The problem would have been solved if they'd been able to create a parking lot for, say, two or three dozen cars, but that wasn't possible.) Most churches here would *love* to have a congestion problem on Sunday mornings.... SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >>> A better illustration of that particular pondian cultural >>> divide would be difficult to find.... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >point (as I'm sure you're aware) is that there simply aren't enough >people who go to church here to cause a traffic problem. Oh, yes, I was aware of that. I was just adding to the information. I didn't want people to think our churches need police on-site for crowd control during the service. We don't have Service Hooligans here. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > I was out of town yesterday and unable to provide photographic > evidence of this. Not too far from me is a large church with a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > This - the traffic directing at churches - is a fairly common practice > here. I see. He's a lollipop man. SignatureDavid ===== >tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >I see. He's a lollipop man. Yes, but one with the power to throw mild-mannered people to the ground and arrest them. Given our weather, they are never heavily disguised by wearing bomber jackets. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >I see. He's a lollipop man. A verger might be more appropriate or, in severe cases, a bishop with crozier. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I see. He's a lollipop man. But doing a better job than this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1988653,00.html >>On 13 Jan 2007, Mike Lyle wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >will hold up oncoming traffic to allow pedestrians to cross the >street. ... I live about 100m from a popular CofE-but-a-bit-fundie-with-it church and occasionally find my drive blocked by the cars of inconsiderate church-goers, or that there are cars parked obstructing the traffic in one way or another. 'Park as you would be parked by' does not seem to be part of the golden rule. Mike Page mikeorang.page@ntlworld.com had it: > I live about 100m from a popular CofE-but-a-bit-fundie-with-it > church and occasionally find my drive blocked by the cars of > inconsiderate church-goers, or that there are cars parked > obstructing the traffic in one way or another. 'Park as you would > be parked by' does not seem to be part of the golden rule. One of David's Laws (I think it's number 17) states: "Religious people park on the pavement". It is derived from observation rather than first principles, and it does take for granted the axiom that persons attending a church on a Sunday morning are "religious". SignatureDavid ===== >mikeorang.page@ntlworld.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >than first principles, and it does take for granted the axiom that >persons attending a church on a Sunday morning are "religious". I'd be interested in the wisdom encapsulated in the other laws. Would you share some of them with us? My own contribution is limited to Page's Law of Inverse Truth: Whatever organisations assert vigorously in public (eg in mission statements or job adverts) is the opposite of the case. I note that, following a makeover of its corporate image (costing an estimated £65000), my professional body has started to add 'Inspiring confidence' to the sigs of its functionaries' e-mails - a fine example of the law in action. Mike Page mikeorang.page@ntlworld.com had it: > >mikeorang.page@ntlworld.com had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'd be interested in the wisdom encapsulated in the other laws. > Would you share some of them with us? I can't always remember them as they are nearly 50 years in the making. The appropriate Law pops into my mind when the occasion for its use arises. Let's see: - If something doesn't work and you can't figure out why, taking it apart and putting it back together again will fix it (I think this came up here a few weeks ago). - After a dozen years or so, each computer system you have designed and written will be superseded without the documentation ever having been consulted. - It takes 40 minutes longer than you think to get past the M5/M6 junction. (the above Law is subject to the tollroad corollary which inserts "or £4 more" after "longer"). - Explaining your non-functioning computer program to your toddler will instantly enable you to diagnose the fault. If a toddler is not available, a cat or a life-size cardboard image of any movie star will suffice. I will try to think of others. SignatureDavid ===== usenet.omrud@gmail.com had it: > mikeorang.page@ntlworld.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > I will try to think of others. Ah yes: - If rats are experimented on, they will develop cancer. SignatureDavid ===== >usenet.omrud@gmail.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >- If rats are experimented on, they will develop cancer. I always liked Cole's Law - defined as being sliced cabbage. Jitze > - If rats are experimented on, they will develop cancer. ...much as they will if they aren't experimented on. At least that's what happened to all three of mine. SignatureSML > - Explaining your non-functioning computer program to your toddler > will instantly enable you to diagnose the fault. If a toddler is not > available, a cat or a life-size cardboard image of any movie star > will suffice. The usual formulation for this one is: if you want to solve your problem, explain it to a teddy-bear. You can use the same teddy-bear several times being quite sure that it doesn't remember your previous explanations (and its adulthood won't be spoiled by sudden wild reminiscences of your problems); it has more patience than an average toddler; and it doesn't suddenly attempt to make disconcerting sounds commenting your latest explanation. SignatureAlec St.Petersburg, Russia [30E18 59N56] > My own contribution is limited to Page's Law of Inverse Truth: > Whatever organisations assert vigorously in public (eg in mission > statements or job adverts) is the opposite of the case. And the corollary about product names? I don't think that was mentioned in the Big 'N Tasty thread. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of uniformed police for crowd control or whatever, but have to pay > for the presence inside private property. There's a difference between the kind of arrangement we see in the UK (and I'd guess in the US) where a Police presence is required (eg at football matches) but is not held to be the taxpayers' responsibility and the arrangement individual officers may make to do part time work when not on duty. In the former case the Police are on official duty with wages / overtime paid by the Police Authority but the Authority is reimbursed by the organisation being policed. In the latter case an individual officer is paid by a commercial organisation and is no more acting on behalf of the Police than a nurse working as a part time barmaid is representing the NHS. It's not clear to me which arrangement applied to the professor's nemesis. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >than a nurse working as a part time barmaid is representing the NHS. >It's not clear to me which arrangement applied to the professor's nemesis. Presumably the professor was not crossing the street in his capacity of "Professor" (a job title) and was not representing the university that employs him. Perhaps he should be referred to as Mr or Dr. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) mail@peterduncanson.net had it: > Presumably the professor was not crossing the street in his capacity > of "Professor" (a job title) and was not representing the university > that employs him. Perhaps he should be referred to as Mr or Dr. Actually, it could be argued that he was crossing the road in his capacity as a professor. On the radio this morning, he said that the conference he was attending (in his role as a historian at least, and possibly representing his university) took place in two hotels which face each other - he was crossing the road between them to collect his conference badge when he was stopped. However, I'm comfortable with using Professor as a form of address. SignatureDavid ===== > mail@peterduncanson.net had it: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > However, I'm comfortable with using Professor as a form of address. So am I. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk had it: > > mail@peterduncanson.net had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So am I. Thank you for your support, Professor. SignatureDavid ===== "the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote : > laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk had it: >> > mail@peterduncanson.net had it: >> > >> >>Presumably the professor was not crossing the street in his capacity >> >>of "Professor" (a job title) and was not representing the university >> >>that employs him. Perhaps he should be referred to as Mr or Dr. <snip> >> > However, I'm comfortable with using Professor as a form of address. >> >> So am I. > > Thank you for your support, Professor. How would you all feel -- speaking entirely hypothetically, you understand -- about Vice President? Philip Eden > "the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote : > > laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk had it: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > How would you all feel -- speaking entirely hypothetically, you > understand -- about Vice President? I feel he should be replaced as soon as possible, though not necessarily with Condi Rice. More to the point, I can just barely tolerate it for the VP of the US. If anyone tried to use it for the VP of a corporation or the like, I'd probably barf. SignatureBob Lieblich Sensitive Fellow >> "the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote : >> > laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk had it: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I feel he should be replaced as soon as possible, though not >necessarily with Condi Rice. Definitely not with Condi Rice -- she doesn't sound *anything* like Coop. SignatureArchie Valparaiso > "the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > How would you all feel -- speaking entirely hypothetically, you > understand -- about Vice President? Personally I prefer Professor but that may change: I was recently invited, by a former student, to take on the post of Technical Vice President in his company. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> "the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > by a former student, to take on the post of Technical Vice President in > his company. Aksherly, the direction my thoughts were taking -- still hypothetically, naturally -- were towards the vice presidency of a learned society with a royal patron. Philip "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> wrote >> > Aksherly, the direction my thoughts were taking -- still hypothetically, > naturally -- were towards the vice presidency of a learned society > with a royal patron. Doh ... was towards ... It was very late. pe In alt.usage.english, Philip Eden wrote: >>> How would you all feel -- speaking entirely hypothetically, you >>> understand -- about Vice President? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >naturally -- were towards the vice presidency of a learned society >with a royal patron. Have you been demoted? The Web says a Philip Eden is the President of the Ely-Hereward Rotary Club. Then there's the Hampstead Thinkers' Caucus (or something): President Mrs Dutt-Pauker; Secretary of the Meteorological Section Philip Eden. SignatureV >> "the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote : >> >>> laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk had it: >>>>> However, I'm comfortable with using Professor as a form of >>>>> address. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > invited, by a former student, to take on the post of Technical Vice > President in his company. Now, isn't that flattering! SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>> "the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote : >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Now, isn't that flattering! One _would_ wish to inquire, before accepting the position, as to which particular technical vice one would be expected to preside over. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>> Personally I prefer Professor but that may change: I was recently >>> invited, by a former student, to take on the post of Technical Vice [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > One _would_ wish to inquire, before accepting the position, as to > which particular technical vice one would be expected to preside over. We've got a nice one that clamps onto a door. I think YoungBloke wants to preside over that one, though. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>>"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote : >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Now, isn't that flattering! Certainly is! Even better, he asked how much I would like to be paid. The moment was ever so slightly marred by the amusement of a bystander [1] who commented that it would be a good arrangement as long as I wasn't expected to actually *do* anything technical, especially with numbers. [1] Obaue: in fact, he was sitting down. Is there a word for a seated bystander? SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) On 15 Jan 2007, LFS wrote >>> Personally I prefer Professor but that may change: I was >>> recently invited, by a former student, to take on the post of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > [1] Obaue: in fact, he was sitting down. Is there a word for a > seated bystander? Onlooker? Busybody? Smart-a.s? SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >>> Personally I prefer Professor but that may change: I was recently >>> invited, by a former student, to take on the post of Technical Vice [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > wasn't expected to actually *do* anything technical, especially with > numbers. I note that you didn't call him an "innocent" bystander. Fran >>>> Personally I prefer Professor but that may change: I was recently >>>> invited, by a former student, to take on the post of Technical Vice [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I note that you didn't call him an "innocent" bystander. I didn't actually specify his gender, either. But it was, of course, a man. Erudite and often charming. Far from innocent, though. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>>> Personally I prefer Professor but that may change: I was recently >>>>> invited, by a former student, to take on the post of Technical Vice [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I didn't actually specify his gender, either. But it was, of course, a > man. Erudite and often charming. Far from innocent, though. You did, in the footnote. Fran >>>>>> Personally I prefer Professor but that may change: I was recently >>>>>> invited, by a former student, to take on the post of Technical Vice [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You did, in the footnote. So I did. I really must be more careful. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>>>>> Personally I prefer Professor but that may change: I was recently >>>>>>> invited, by a former student, to take on the post of Technical Vice [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>>> long as I wasn't expected to actually *do* anything technical, >>>>> especially with numbers. Fair comment tho'. >>>> I note that you didn't call him an "innocent" bystander. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >So I did. I really must be more careful. Indeed, make sure TVPs aren't liable for the debts or tortious liability of the organisation. Mike Page > >> "the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote : > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Now, isn't that flattering! Not if she's over-qualified for the job. > Personally I prefer Professor but that may change: I was recently > invited, by a former student, to take on the post of Technical Vice > President in his company. Technically it's a vice, but really, nobody cares... SignatureSML > tony_cooper213@earthlink.net had it: >> Every Sunday morning off-duty police officers direct traffic outside >> of many large churches in the area. > I don't believe there are any churches within 200 miles of me which > might require any form of crowd control, unless it's throwing people > in. The church I attend regularly has people spilling out the entrance door, though I agree it would be unusual to find *many* large churches in an area all in that situation. We'e benefitting from the London Catholic revival due almost entirely to recent immigrant groups. Plus the church front door is almost right onto a busy shopping street. Weddings and funerals tend to cause traffic hassles, but otherwise church traffic melts in with general shopping traffic. Drunks and mentally ill people (ok, all you Dawkins fans, I hear you saying "that's all of you") wandering in are a fairly regular occurrence, another hazard of being a high street church with an "open doors" policy. My own wedding in the church was interrupted by a tramp's dog barking at the back. Matthew Huntbach In alt.usage.english, Tony Cooper wrote: [...] >I admit to reading between the lines on this, but I suspect that the >mild-mannered history Professor was not so mild in the actual >confrontation. Even short-tempered Atlanta policemen don't throw >people to the ground who mildly say "Right-O, Officer" and stop trying >to cross where they are not supposed to cross. Culture clash, innit. A distinguished, unworldly academic who isn't just ignorant of the law but unaccustomed to being bossed about by someone young enough to be one of his students collides with a cop who has not previously encountered such a preposterous accent or anyone quite so unworldly and thinks the academic is pulling his leg or looking down his nose at him or both. Bye-bye bona fides, hello jaws hitting the sidewalk (first metaphorically then, perhaps inevitably, not so metaphorically). The police were still wrong, though. Servants of the state shouldn't attack weedy tweedy buffoons, no matter how irritating they are. >The Professor is the winner in this case. He sure is. Incidentally, I've got the last line. "Can you prove your bona fides?" said a limey to a cop. "There's a lecture starting shortly. This is dreadfully de trop." "De tro'," replied the officer. "That P is not expressed. And can't you see word 'Police' emblazoned on my vest?" "Which vest is this?" said Sweet F-A. "I only see a jerkin. And my 'de trop' was jocular, you humourless Amerkin." With this, the supercilious gent stepped out into the road Will he, won't he, will he, won't he, will he, won't he cross the road? Next verse, anyone? SignatureV > In alt.usage.english, Tony Cooper wrote: >> I admit to reading between the lines on this, but I suspect that the >> mild-mannered history Professor was not so mild in the actual >> confrontation. Even short-tempered Atlanta policemen don't throw >> people to the ground who mildly say "Right-O, Officer" and stop trying >> to cross where they are not supposed to cross. > Culture clash, innit. A distinguished, unworldly academic who isn't just > ignorant of the law but unaccustomed to being bossed about by someone young > enough to be one of his students collides with a cop who has not previously > encountered such a preposterous accent or anyone quite so unworldly and > thinks the academic is pulling his leg or looking down his nose at him or > both. I've been to conferences in these places in the US which appear to be designed on the principle that no-one walks anywhere. Perhaps to them it really is so unusual that if one is staying in one hotel and needs to get to another nearby that the conference is in, one would be assumed to be committing a criminal act if one didn't do that by car. In Britain, it would be absolutely standard to nip across the road if there were no cars coming, and what else is one to do if they seem to have built the place without any pavements or footpaths, as they seem to do? Matthew Huntbach On 15 Jan 2007, Matthew Huntbach wrote > In Britain, it would > be absolutely standard to nip across the road if there were no > cars coming, and what else is one to do if they seem to have > built the place without any pavements or footpaths, as they seem > to do? The pictures I saw showed him on a pavement, so that defence doesn't fly: he was supposed to use the pavement to walk to the corner, wait for the crossing light, and walk back to his destination on the other side. Which was a bit silly, and I'm with those who feel that the jaywalking laws are basically dumb; that needlessly enforcing them is dumber; and that the cop needs retraining. That said, though, the prof comes across as something of a pompous a.s. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >> In alt.usage.english, Tony Cooper wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >to another nearby that the conference is in, one would be assumed to be committing >a criminal act if one didn't do that by car. Car? I'm a veteran of many conferences and conventions. What I've seen are shuttle buses between hotels and the conference center. The traffic congestion in these areas is the result of all the buses (coaches, perhaps) dropping off and picking up the mild-mannered. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > I've been to conferences in these places in the US which appear to be > designed on the principle that no-one walks anywhere. Perhaps to them it > really is so unusual that if one is staying in one hotel and needs to get > to another nearby that the conference is in, one would be assumed to be committing > a criminal act if one didn't do that by car. As it turns out, I was in Atlanta recently for a conference, and I'd say the ex-Cllr is correct. The conference was in one of those horrendous atrium hotels and it was the hotel we were staying at, but my colleague had to purchase a vaporizer (the hotel had none), so we asked where the nearest all-night drugstore (= BrE "chemist's") was. We were told that there was a Walgreen's but we were warned that we had to take a cab there. It was six blocks from the hotel ... about 10 minutes' walk. We walked there and back. The reason they told us we couldn't walk was apparently because there was a homeless shelter along the route. But it was rather trickier crossing streets there than it ought to have been. At least there were sidewalks. SignatureSalvatore Volatile >The conference was in one of those horrendous atrium hotels and it >was the hotel we were staying at, but my colleague had to purchase a >vaporizer [...] We were told that there was a Walgreen's but we were >warned that we had to take a cab there. It was six blocks from the >hotel ... about 10 minutes' walk. Aha! You were at the Marriott! I have done that very walk, for very similar reasons. About the only nice thing I can say about that trip was that I got to spend an entire day traveling around the metro area with friends and had a fabulous fried-chicken dinner at Emily Saliers's restaurant, Watershed, in Decatur. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness "Vinny Burgoo" <hnNULh@yahoo.co.uk> wrote : > "Can you prove your bona fides?" said a limey to a cop. > "There's a lecture starting shortly. This is dreadfully de trop." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > With this, the supercilious gent stepped out into the road > - And tum te tum te tum te tum te tum te tum te toad Thankyou. Philip Eden In alt.usage.english, Philip Eden wrote: >Thankyou. Thank you. Come on. Next verse, please, Philip. SignatureV > In alt.usage.english, Philip Eden wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Come on. Next verse, please, Philip. I wish I could. When versification skills were handed out I wasn't even at the end of the queue. It doesn't stop me appreciating them in others, though. Philip > Tony Cooper and John Dean write: >>>>> If you can count seven uniformed cops, then how come the Professor [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Someone in another newsgroup said the jacket also had POLICE on it in > large letters. Across the back where he couldn't see it or on the front? Which is the guy in the picture ( http://hnn.us/Pics/Fernandez%20arrest.jpg ) that shouted at him? The big one standing over him that looks like Norm out of Cheers? Where did the other half dozen spring from? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> Tony Cooper and John Dean write: >>>>>> If you can count seven uniformed cops, then how come the Professor [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >of Cheers? >Where did the other half dozen spring from? They rallied to back-up the arresting officers from attack by the mild-mannered historians appearing on the scene with torches and pitchforks. In Atlanta, one historian is an oddity. Two historians are a mob. Three historians are an unruly - even if well-spoken - mob. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> Tony Cooper and John Dean write: >>>>>>> If you can count seven uniformed cops, then how come the Professor [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > mild-mannered historians appearing on the scene with torches and > pitchforks. No scythes? My goodness, standards in the historical profession _have_ been slipping. > In Atlanta, one historian is an oddity. Two historians > are a mob. Three historians are an unruly - even if well-spoken - > mob. Three historians constitute a "school". SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > Tony Cooper and John Dean write: > >>>> If you can count seven uniformed cops, then how come the Professor > >>>> claims that he didn't realize the man in blue directing traffic and > >>>> blowing the whistle at him was a cop? [...] > Having read several accounts of this incident, my take is that it was a > simple case of stubborn bloody-mindedness on both sides. Don't know if this link has already been posted, but here's the prof's mild-mannered first-hand account: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2149733.ece SignatureMike. [snip] > Don't know if this link has already been posted, but here's the prof's > mild-mannered first-hand account: > http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2149733.ece [snip] Very educational -- thanks! Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego >> Tony Cooper and John Dean write: >> >>>> If you can count seven uniformed cops, then how come the Professor [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >mild-mannered first-hand account: >http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2149733.ece We need additional pondial comparisons of how suspected felons are treated. Dr. Felipi Fernandez-Arnesto says he was transported in a dirty, fetid paddy wagon". Should the Professor, based on his UK upbringing, expected a clean, pleasantly-scented prisoner transport van? Is this yet another area where the US lags? Is there a Tidy Transport Van competition between UK police authorities? He also claims to have been fed revolting cellophane-wrapped sandwiches. What is prisoner fare in the UK gaols? Can anyone post a menu card? Fernandez-Arnesto evidently thought it notable that his arresting officers were "burly". Is it unusual in the UK for police officers to be "burly"? He also commented - braggingly, to me - on his "frail physique", that he is a "slight and feeble person", and that he is an "impeccable, feeble foreigner". One wonders how he could even manage to attempt to cross the street, let alone do so whilst carrying books. Is this the normal condition of a middle-aged scholar in the UK? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL On 15 Jan 2007, Tony Cooper wrote > We need additional pondial comparisons of how suspected felons > are treated. Dr. Felipi Fernandez-Arnesto says he was > transported in “a dirty, fetid paddy wagon". Given his sensibilities, he may well have used "foetid"... SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 15 Jan 2007, Tony Cooper wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Given his sensibilities, he may well have used "foetid"... While clean, foetid paddy wagons are, of course, the norm. SignatureArchie Valparaiso > Fernandez-Arnesto evidently thought it notable that his arresting > officers were "burly". Is it unusual in the UK for police officers to > be "burly"? Yes. UK coppers don't eat doughnuts. SignatureSalvatore Volatile >> Fernandez-Arnesto evidently thought it notable that his arresting >> officers were "burly". Is it unusual in the UK for police officers to >> be "burly"? > >Yes. UK coppers don't eat doughnuts. Bacon sarnies, innit. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>> Tony Cooper and John Dean write: >>> >>>> If you can count seven uniformed cops, then how come the Professor [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >cross the street, let alone do so whilst carrying books. Is this the >normal condition of a middle-aged scholar in the UK? You, of all people, to complain about a bit of verbal dressing up! SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>>> Tony Cooper and John Dean write: >>>> >>>> If you can count seven uniformed cops, then how come the Professor [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> >You, of all people, to complain about a bit of verbal dressing up! I only dress things up to the fives. Fernandez-Arnesto goes to the nines. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > He also claims to have been fed "revolting cellophane-wrapped > sandwiches." What is prisoner fare in the UK gaols? Can anyone > post a menu card? Hmm. Remembering several museums we went to in London, "revolting cellophane-wrapped sandwiches" seemed to be standard fare there. (Of course, they weren't given away for free--far from it.) Prisoners might eat better, though. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I like giving talks to industry, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |because one of the things that I've Palo Alto, CA 94304 |found is that you really can't |learn anything at the Harvard kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |Business School. (650)857-7572 | Clayton Christensen | Harvard Business School http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged >> English History Professor? > [snip] > > In this pic, it looks like seven uniformed cops and maybe one > plainsclothesman: Looks like a young Stavros. SignatureRay UK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 1113 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! >How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged >English History Professor? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >And he mentions a Spanish Gypsy curse, which I hadn't heard before - >something like "May you have many law suits and win them". Most entertaining: thanks. Did he stumble by saying that the police were prone to an excess of zeal? I'd favour 'liable' there. SignaturePaul In bocca al Lupo! In alt.usage.english, Paul Wolff wrote: >Most entertaining: thanks. Entertaining and shocking: seconded. >Did he stumble by saying that the police were prone to an excess of >zeal? I'd favour 'liable' there. He was distrait. I would be too. Kinnell! Actually, I'd favour "prone" when describing such behaviour whether distrait or not. "Prone" automatically suggests a weakness or fault whereas "liable" can perhaps (perhaps) sometimes be neutral. (That's the first time I've heard "distrait" said aloud. No T according to the prof. No T according to the NSOED. Well I never.) SignatureV hnNULh@yahoo.co.uk had it: > In alt.usage.english, Paul Wolff wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (That's the first time I've heard "distrait" said aloud. No T according > to the prof. No T according to the NSOED. Well I never.) I am nowhere near as posh as the learned prof, but IME "distrait" is spoken as a French word. Not that it's in my daily vocab, mind. SignatureDavid ===== >In alt.usage.english, Paul Wolff wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >(That's the first time I've heard "distrait" said aloud. No T according >to the prof. No T according to the NSOED. Well I never.) It rhymes (almost) with "astray" which describes the prof's[1] position on the road. [1] Should "prof's" be "prof.'s" or would that be too professorially pedantic? SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Vinny Burgoo wrote: >> (That's the first time I've heard "distrait" said aloud. No T >> according to the prof. No T according to the NSOED. Well I never.) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > [1] Should "prof's" be "prof.'s" or would that be too professorially > pedantic? M-W Online lists "prof" as a word, so "prof's" is jes' fine. SignatureSkitt Jes' fine News flash! Prof. F-A will be interviewed on "Broadcasting House" on Radio 4 some time in the next hour. (Someone here said we don't have anti-jaywalking laws in Europe. It used to be that in Berlin it was not only illegal to cross anywhere but at a designated crossing but you had to wait for the lights to change. People would queue at perfectly empty roads waiting for the light and hiss at ignorant foreigners who jumped the gun.) SignatureV > (Someone here said we don't have anti-jaywalking laws in Europe. It > used to be that in Berlin it was not only illegal to cross anywhere > but at a designated crossing but you had to wait for the lights to > change. People would queue at perfectly empty roads waiting for the > light and hiss at ignorant foreigners who jumped the gun.) This is not Berlin, of course, but California Vehicle Code has: 21450. Whenever traffic is controlled by official traffic control signals showing different colored lights, color-lighted arrows, or color-lighted bicycle symbols, successively, one at a time, or in combination, only the colors green, yellow, and red shall be used, except for pedestrian control signals, and those lights shall indicate and apply to drivers of vehicles, operators of bicycles, and pedestrians as provided in this chapter. 21453. [...] (d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, a pedestrian facing a steady circular red or red arrow signal shall not enter the roadway. Rules are rules. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ In alt.usage.english, Skitt wrote: [...] >21453. [...] (d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control >signal as provided in Section 21456, a pedestrian facing a steady >circular red or red arrow signal shall not enter the roadway. > >Rules are rules. Jawohl. I think Wayne Brown or someone else here said that the hissing in Berlin (actually I think it was in Augsburg, not Berlin) had something to do with setting a good example for children - even if the road is empty for a mile in both directions, it is important to teach children to wait for the pedestrian light to turn green. This attitude is (or was) so deeply ingrained that people would wait (and hiss) beside empty roads not only when there were no cars but when there were no children present either. That's not my idea of setting a good example to adults. SignatureV > In alt.usage.english, Skitt wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > That's not my idea of setting a good example to adults. Excerpt from Jerome K Jerome's "Three men on the brummel" Harris led off at Stuttgart by insulting an official. Stuttgart is a charming town, clean and bright, a smaller Dresden. It has the additional attraction of containing little that one need to go out of one's way to see: a medium-sized picture gallery, a small museum of antiquities, and half a palace, and you are through with the entire thing and can enjoy yourself. Harris did not know it was an official he was insulting. He took it for a fireman (it looked liked a fireman), and he called it a "dummer Esel." In German you are not permitted to call an official a "silly a.s," but undoubtedly this particular man was one. What had happened was this: Harris in the Stadgarten, anxious to get out, and seeing a gate open before him, had stepped over a wire into the street. Harris maintains he never saw it, but undoubtedly there was hanging to the wire a notice, "Durchgang Verboten!" The man, who was standing near the gates stopped Harris, and pointed out to him this notice. Harris thanked him, and passed on. The man came after him, and explained that treatment of the matter in such off-hand way could not be allowed; what was necessary to put the business right was that Harris should step back over the wire into the garden. Harris pointed out to the man that the notice said "going through forbidden," and that, therefore, by re-entering the garden that way he would be infringing the law a second time. The man saw this for himself, and suggested that to get over the difficulty Harris should go back into the garden by the proper entrance, which was round the corner, and afterwards immediately come out again by the same gate. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada On 15 Jan 2007, John Kane wrote >> In alt.usage.english, Skitt wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Excerpt from Jerome K Jerome's "Three men on the brummel" Good quote. I learned it as "on the bummel", and that appears to be right -- that spelling gets 14,000+ google hits, and "on the brummel" gets 27. F.W.I.W. (not a lot) SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van [...] > I learned it as "on the bummel", and that appears to be right -- > that spelling gets 14,000+ google hits, and "on the brummel" gets > 27. I'll second that (though I don't know the book): "bummeln" means to stroll or tour or wander; a "Stadtbummel" is a stroll through (or in) the town, for example. There is a verb "brummeln" meaning to mumble, which is clearly not relevant here but may be the origin of the wrong version. SignatureLes > On 15 Jan 2007, John Kane wrote > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > F.W.I.W. (not a lot) So I can't type or spell. I must have been thinking of I . K Brunel. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > > On 15 Jan 2007, John Kane wrote > > > Excerpt from Jerome K Jerome's "Three men on the brummel" > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So I can't type or spell. I must have been thinking of I . K Brunel. Or George "Beau" Brummel, 1778-1840. >> On 15 Jan 2007, John Kane wrote [...] >>> Excerpt from Jerome K Jerome's "Three men on the brummel" >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So I can't type or spell. I must have been thinking of I . K > Brunel. These men, were they fashionably dressed? > I think Wayne Brown or someone else here said that the hissing in Berlin > (actually I think it was in Augsburg, not Berlin) had something to do [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That's not my idea of setting a good example to adults. There are a few scenes in James Church's "A Corpse in the Koryo" wherein our hero tries to cross the street in Pyongyang. Even if there are no cars anwhere nearby,* the traffic warden makes him use the pedestrian underpass. *as in here: <http://www.pbase.com/banyanman/image/54667095> SignatureSML In alt.usage.english, Sara Lorimer wrote: >There are a few scenes in James Church's "A Corpse in the Koryo" wherein >our hero tries to cross the street in Pyongyang. Even if there are no >cars anwhere nearby,* the traffic warden makes him use the pedestrian >underpass. > >*as in here: <http://www.pbase.com/banyanman/image/54667095> If you build an underpass, pedestrians will come. SignatureV >How many Georgia policemen does it take to arrest a middle-aged >English History Professor? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >worth studying. He also has the exactly correct mannerisms to go >with it. There is an article by the Professor in the Sunday Times (UK) today: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2545841,00.html In it he describes the way he was treated by his fellow prisoners. One of them, Mac, introduced him to another with the wonderful words: "Dis guy's British, so he don' speak English so good". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.