More naval journalism from the USA

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

James Hogg - 19 Jan 2009 08:34 GMT

Any comments on this headline?

We Should Build a Bigger Navy
China is.
by Seth Cropsey

The Weekly Standard
01/26/2009, Volume 014, Issue 18
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/025ibosb.asp

James

Reply to this Message

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 19 Jan 2009 10:44 GMT

>Any comments on this headline?
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>01/26/2009, Volume 014, Issue 18
>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/025ibosb.asp

The first comment is that the meaning is crystal-clear.

The second coment is that the headlinist should be congratulated on writing a
headline whose meaning is clear.[1]

The third comment: we shouldn't look to headlines for grammatical precision.

[1] Such clarity might get the headlinist drummed out of the International
Guild of Baffling Headline Writers.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message

Chuck Riggs - 19 Jan 2009 17:24 GMT

>Any comments on this headline?
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>01/26/2009, Volume 014, Issue 18
>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/025ibosb.asp

It is fine. That is to say, I wholeheartedly agree.

Signature

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

Reply to this Message

Raymond O'Hara - 19 Jan 2009 17:34 GMT

>>Any comments on this headline?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> It is fine. That is to say, I wholeheartedly agree.

Agree with what?
That we need a bigger navy they have zero carriers we have 10 with an 11th
on the way.
And they have no experience with naval flight ops what we've leaned over 80
years they will have to start learning.
Its just more rightwing scare mongering.

Reply to this Message

Mike Lyle - 19 Jan 2009 20:46 GMT

>>> Any comments on this headline?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> over 80 years they will have to start learning.
> Its just more rightwing scare mongering.

Correct in, I think, all particulars. (But I will say that a smart navy
of any nationality can learn very fast.) Making non-enemies into enemies
seems to be the besetting sin of the American right: which is why the US
foot has so many scars and shot-holes in it.

As for the language, of course it would more logically be "We should be
building a bigger navy: China is." But even that isn't really a formal
sentence. And it's a headline, for Heaven's sake, and the meaning is
clear.

Signature

Mike.

Reply to this Message

R H Draney - 19 Jan 2009 20:59 GMT

Mike Lyle filted:

>>>> Any comments on this headline?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>sentence. And it's a headline, for Heaven's sake, and the meaning is
>clear.

Another possible first draft: "Why aren't we building a bigger navy? China
is."

....r

Signature

"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"

Reply to this Message

J. J. Lodder - 19 Jan 2009 21:17 GMT

> >>> Any comments on this headline?
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> seems to be the besetting sin of the American right: which is why the US
> foot has so many scars and shot-holes in it.

Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
most of them referring to
<www.amazon.com/Americas-Coming-War-China-Collision/dp/1403968411>

If you are sure you are going to have a war
then you surely will have it,

Jan

Reply to this Message

Murray Arnow - 20 Jan 2009 00:06 GMT

>Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
>most of them referring to
><www.amazon.com/Americas-Coming-War-China-Collision/dp/1403968411>
>
>If you are sure you are going to have a war
>then you surely will have it,

That depends on who believes the certainty of war.

Reply to this Message

J. J. Lodder - 20 Jan 2009 12:11 GMT

> >Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
> >most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> That depends on who believes the certainty of war.

If enough people talk about it often enough
as if it is inevitable than it will become inevitable.

Jan

Reply to this Message

Raymond O'Hara - 20 Jan 2009 15:54 GMT

>> >Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
>> >most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Jan

In the late 19th century all of the European armies were preparing for THE
war,not A war.
It came true in 1914 when Austria and Russia {with an assist from France}
started it.

Reply to this Message

J. J. Lodder - 20 Jan 2009 22:49 GMT

> >> >Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
> >> >most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> In the late 19th century all of the European armies were preparing for THE
> war,not A war.

Historically incorrect.
Each participant originally had limited aims.
France wanted a revanche for 1870,
and the Alsace-Loraine back.
Britain wanted to curb the German navy,
and German influence overseas.
Germany wanted to teach the French another lesson,
and room for colonies.
Etc.

> It came true in 1914 when Austria and Russia {with an assist from France}
> started it.

Nobody thought at the start that it would become The War.
They all expected to be home for Christmass.

Jan

Reply to this Message

Raymond O'Hara - 22 Jan 2009 02:53 GMT

>> >> >Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
>> >> >most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Jan

They think that of every war after the fall of france in 1940 the Germans
disbanded much of the Wehrmacht.
In 1961 Lincoln called for 90 day volunteers.
It's not that they don't think it will be THE WAR, it's that they over
estimate theirown prowess while underestimating the enemies will.

Reply to this Message

Evan Kirshenbaum - 22 Jan 2009 06:19 GMT

> They think that of every war after the fall of france in 1940 the
> Germans disbanded much of the Wehrmacht. In 1961 Lincoln called for
> 90 day volunteers.

Well, seeing as how the war had been over for nearly a century, ...

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | only way?
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be
| a hero, you've got to do
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | stupid things every once in
(650)857-7572 | a while.

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Reply to this Message

R H Draney - 22 Jan 2009 07:43 GMT

Evan Kirshenbaum filted:

>> They think that of every war after the fall of france in 1940 the
>> Germans disbanded much of the Wehrmacht. In 1961 Lincoln called for
>> 90 day volunteers.
>
>Well, seeing as how the war had been over for nearly a century, ...

That'd be Dennis Lincoln of the Peace Corps....r

Signature

"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"

Reply to this Message

Murray Arnow - 20 Jan 2009 18:40 GMT

>> >Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
>> >most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>If enough people talk about it often enough
>as if it is inevitable than it will become inevitable.

On the surface it seems obvious, but I don't think in actuality that's
true. It depends on the political power of the believers.

I'm thinking of WWII where German leadership wanted war and needed no
excuse to start one (I know they manufactured reasons, but it wasn't
really necessary). The propaganda certainly played a part in getting
people to support war, but that war would have been waged regardless of
the depth of public support.

Reply to this Message

Mike Lyle - 20 Jan 2009 19:41 GMT

>>>> Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
>>>> most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> people to support war, but that war would have been waged regardless
> of the depth of public support.

That's not a contrary case. And we're proposing /expectation/ as a cause
of war, not /approval/, though of course you're right that it does
depend on who's doing the expecting.

Signature

Mike.

Reply to this Message

J. J. Lodder - 20 Jan 2009 22:49 GMT

> >> >Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
> >> >most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> On the surface it seems obvious, but I don't think in actuality that's
> true. It depends on the political power of the believers.

Talking about the coming war
as if it is as inevitable as the coming of spring
builds political support for it.

> I'm thinking of WWII where German leadership wanted war and needed no
> excuse to start one (I know they manufactured reasons, but it wasn't
> really necessary).

They didn't need an excuse because they had a reason.

> The propaganda certainly played a part in getting
> people to support war, but that war would have been waged regardless of
> the depth of public support.

There never was a lack of support for it in Germany
until the war started to go badly wrong.

Jan

Reply to this Message

Chuck Riggs - 20 Jan 2009 16:24 GMT

>>Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
>>most of them referring to
>><www.amazon.com/Americas-Coming-War-China-Collision/dp/1403968411>
>>
>>If you are sure you are going to have a war
>>then you surely will have it,

"I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of
our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in
your beds."
Radio address by Neville Chamberlain shortly before the outbreak of
WWII.

Signature

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

Reply to this Message

Raymond O'Hara - 20 Jan 2009 16:33 GMT

>>>Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
>>>most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Radio address by Neville Chamberlain shortly before the outbreak of
> WWII.

Nobody wanted war.
When Hitler broke that agreement it was Chamberlain who declared war on
Germany.
The time bought by Munich helped Gr Britain and France get ready for it when
it did come.

hindsight is 50/50 at best.

Reply to this Message

J. J. Lodder - 20 Jan 2009 22:49 GMT

> >>>Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
> >>>most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Nobody wanted war.

Also historically incorrect.
Germany certainly wanted a war.

> When Hitler broke that agreement it was Chamberlain who declared war on
> Germany. The time bought by Munich helped Gr Britain and France get ready
> for it when it did come.

Another one for the category: any excuse will do,

Jan

Reply to this Message

Raymond O'Hara - 22 Jan 2009 02:57 GMT

>> >>>Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
>> >>>most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Jan

He didn't want one with the west, poland and russia were the targets.
What he didn't realie that by breaking the munich agreement he lost all
credibility with the western allies and especially Chamberlain.

Reply to this Message

Murray Arnow - 22 Jan 2009 03:49 GMT

>>> >>>Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
>>> >>>most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>What he didn't realie that by breaking the munich agreement he lost all
>credibility with the western allies and especially Chamberlain.

I'm getting pissed off. This isn't the first time I'm attributed for
nothing I've said. I'll gladly take the credit or blame for what I say,
but I refuse to be associated with the sh.t that belongs to someone
else.

Reply to this Message

Pat Durkin - 22 Jan 2009 04:21 GMT

>>>> >>>Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of
>>>> >>>hits,
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> but I refuse to be associated with the sh.t that belongs to someone
> else.

I see that your attibution line should have been removed, but as you
stated, no statement was attributed to you.

Reply to this Message

Raymond O'Hara - 22 Jan 2009 08:30 GMT

>>>> >>>Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
>>>> >>>most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> but I refuse to be associated with the sh.t that belongs to someone
> else.

f.ck YOU.
Anyone can clearly see the reply is to J.J.
If ou don't wish to be in a thread don't enter it.

Reply to this Message

Murray Arnow - 22 Jan 2009 10:35 GMT

>>>>> >>>Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of hits,
>>>>> >>>most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>Anyone can clearly see the reply is to J.J.
>If ou don't wish to be in a thread don't enter it.

OK, numbnut, but can anyone see I didn't post any of the remarks quoted.
Do you want to flame over this? I'll be happy to singe your butt.

Reply to this Message

Evan Kirshenbaum - 22 Jan 2009 15:26 GMT

>>>>>> >>>Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands
>>>>>> >>>of hits, most of them referring to
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> OK, numbnut, but can anyone see I didn't post any of the remarks
> quoted.

Of course. Your attribution line is in brown and none of the text is
in brown, so none of it is yours. (In your complaint, your
attribution line is in green and so are your words.) Doesn't
everybody's newsreader match up the attribution lines and text?

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |questions that can harmlessly be
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer
|until the Messiah comes. I suspect
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them.
(650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Reply to this Message

Barbara Bailey - 22 Jan 2009 16:26 GMT

Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

>> OK, numbnut, but can anyone see I didn't post any of the remarks
>> quoted.

> Of course. Your attribution line is in brown and none of the text is
> in brown, so none of it is yours. (In your complaint, your
> attribution line is in green and so are your words.) Doesn't
> everybody's newsreader match up the attribution lines and text?

Mine doesn't. The attributions are at the top, preceded by an increasing
number of right-pointing arrowhead as the attribution moves back in time.
The quoted words are preceded by the same number of arrows+1 for each
writer.
So, in this post, your name has no arrows, and what you wrote has one.
Murray's name has one arrow and his words ("Ok, numbnuts...") have two. To
be sure that he wasn't quoted even though he shows up in the attributions,
I would need to count the arrows.

Reply to this Message

Evan Kirshenbaum - 22 Jan 2009 18:13 GMT

> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> wasn't quoted even though he shows up in the attributions, I would
> need to count the arrows.

I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, but it does surprise me a bit that
people still put up with that. It seems very confusing. (Yeah, Gnus
gets it wrong sometimes, when people use some non-standard quote
prefixes (although it can do most of them) or break quoted lines
without adding in the brackets, but it works most of the time.)

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Those who study history are doomed
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to watch others repeat it.
Palo Alto, CA 94304

kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Reply to this Message

Barbara Bailey - 22 Jan 2009 19:54 GMT

>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

>>
>>> Of course. Your attribution line is in brown and none of the text is
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> prefixes (although it can do most of them) or break quoted lines
> without adding in the brackets, but it works most of the time.)

It works fine until the arrows stack up past about four deep for me. It's
easily enough to distinguish 2 arrows from 4 but telling 5 from 6 or eleven
from thirteen at a glance is difficult. Besides, it has the added effect of
encouraging me to trim when I reply, since the reply screen can be horribly
cluttered-looking if I don't.

Reply to this Message

Chuck Riggs - 23 Jan 2009 10:53 GMT

>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>encouraging me to trim when I reply, since the reply screen can be horribly
>cluttered-looking if I don't.

Exactly. I do the same.

Signature

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

Reply to this Message

Chuck Riggs - 23 Jan 2009 10:52 GMT

<snip>

>(Yeah, Gnus
>gets it wrong sometimes, when people use some non-standard quote
>prefixes (although it can do most of them) or break quoted lines
>without adding in the brackets, but it works most of the time.)

What, pray tell, is a Gnu, other than a type of antelope?

Signature

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

Reply to this Message

HVS - 23 Jan 2009 10:55 GMT

On 23 Jan 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote

><snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> What, pray tell, is a Gnu, other than a type of antelope?

"Gnus", not "Gnu" -- it's a Linux newsreader.

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Reply to this Message

Lars Enderin - 23 Jan 2009 11:03 GMT

> On 23 Jan 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> "Gnus", not "Gnu" -- it's a Linux newsreader.

Gnus is independent of Linux. It's implemented in Emacs, which is
available for Linux, Windows, Unix, etc.

Reply to this Message

HVS - 23 Jan 2009 11:06 GMT

On 23 Jan 2009, Lars Enderin wrote

>> On 23 Jan 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Gnus is independent of Linux. It's implemented in Emacs, which is
> available for Linux, Windows, Unix, etc.

True -- but I wonder what proportion of Gnus usage is on Windows
machines? (Negligible, I'd guess.)

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Reply to this Message

Evan Kirshenbaum - 23 Jan 2009 15:32 GMT

> On 23 Jan 2009, Lars Enderin wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> True -- but I wonder what proportion of Gnus usage is on Windows
> machines? (Negligible, I'd guess.)

100% of the usage in this household. (And so, probably, a significant
percentage in this group.)

Signature

Reply to this Message

Chuck Riggs - 24 Jan 2009 12:15 GMT

>On 23 Jan 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>"Gnus", not "Gnu" -- it's a Linux newsreader.

It looked familiar but I couldn't place it. Thanks, Harvey.

Signature

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

Reply to this Message

Lars Enderin - 23 Jan 2009 10:58 GMT

> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> What, pray tell, is a Gnu, other than a type of antelope?

Gnu is short for Gnu is not Unix -- Richard Stallman's free Unix
project. Gnus is Gnu news, implemented in Emacs.

Reply to this Message

Glenn Knickerbocker - 23 Jan 2009 17:19 GMT

> What, pray tell, is a Gnu, other than a type of antelope?

Not Unix.

¬R

Reply to this Message

Chuck Riggs - 24 Jan 2009 12:18 GMT

>> What, pray tell, is a Gnu, other than a type of antelope?
>
>Not Unix.

Thanks, everyone. I'm happy with Agent, but I'll ask anyway: is it any
good?

Signature

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

Reply to this Message

Nick - 24 Jan 2009 13:19 GMT

>>> What, pray tell, is a Gnu, other than a type of antelope?
>>
>>Not Unix.
>
> Thanks, everyone. I'm happy with Agent, but I'll ask anyway: is it any
> good?

Not as good as Agent. And I'm using it. Having used a lot of them, I
still think Agent is - apart from a couple of missing features that may
have been added in newer releases - the best newsreader going.

Signature

Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu

Reply to this Message

John Varela - 22 Jan 2009 18:26 GMT

> To
> be sure that he wasn't quoted even though he shows up in the attributions,
> I would need to count the arrows.

I did, and he isn't.

Signature

John Varela
Trade OLD lamps for NEW for email

Reply to this Message

Mike Lyle - 22 Jan 2009 20:14 GMT

>>> OK, numbnut, but can anyone see I didn't post any of the remarks
>>> quoted.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> two. To be sure that he wasn't quoted even though he shows up in the
> attributions, I would need to count the arrows.

I use QuoteFix, which on my machine stopped colour-coding two or three
years ago: that's far too recent for me to have found time to fix the
problem. The positive side is that at the same time it stopped showing
the smileys, which I'd never been able to switch off.

Signature

Mike.

Reply to this Message

Skitt - 22 Jan 2009 21:25 GMT

>>>> OK, numbnut, but can anyone see I didn't post any of the remarks
>>>> quoted.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> problem. The positive side is that at the same time it stopped showing
> the smileys, which I'd never been able to switch off.

Apparently, you never discovered the "Options" menu. I'm shocked. SHOCKED,
I say.

Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Reply to this Message

Skitt - 22 Jan 2009 21:11 GMT

With OE plus QF, the quoted text lines are a different color than the
corresponding attribution line. One has to check the color of the previous
(lower) attribution line to pick out the proper text lines. Counting the
right-pointing arrowheads, as explained above, is the another option.

Signature

Skitt (AmE)
colorfully yours

Reply to this Message

Default User - 22 Jan 2009 22:28 GMT

> With OE plus QF, the quoted text lines are a different color than the
> corresponding attribution line. One has to check the color of the
> previous (lower) attribution line to pick out the proper text lines.
> Counting the right-pointing arrowheads, as explained above, is the
> another option.

Which is how most color-highlighters do it. The attributions are newer
text than the quotes.

Brian

Signature

If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Reply to this Message

Evan Kirshenbaum - 22 Jan 2009 23:33 GMT

>> With OE plus QF, the quoted text lines are a different color than
>> the corresponding attribution line. One has to check the color of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Which is how most color-highlighters do it. The attributions are
> newer text than the quotes.

Yeah. I think Gnus is the only one I knw that recognizes (or, at
least, tries to recognize) attribution lines and colors them to match
the next older quoting level.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It is one thing to be mistaken; it is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |quite another to be willfully
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |ignorant
| Cecil Adams
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Reply to this Message

Default User - 22 Jan 2009 19:22 GMT

My newsreader has that ability, but I don't use it. I don't like my
messages all colorful. I use limited coloring in the message trees to
indicate posts from me and replies to me. I will sometimes go through
and read all the latter first and return to regular group reading later.

Brian

Signature

If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Reply to this Message

Raymond O'Hara - 23 Jan 2009 01:41 GMT

>>>>>> >>>Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of
>>>>>> >>>hits,
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> OK, numbnut, but can anyone see I didn't post any of the remarks quoted.
> Do you want to flame over this? I'll be happy to singe your butt.

I snipped nothing nutless wonder.Take up your whine with whoever did.
Are you going to hold your breath and stamp your feet?

Reply to this Message

Murray Arnow - 23 Jan 2009 05:56 GMT

>>>>>>> >>>Indeed, "america's coming war with china" yields thousands of
>>>>>>> >>>hits,
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>I snipped nothing nutless wonder.
>Take up your whine with whoever did.

Fuckwit, did I accuse you of anything?[1] I was following this thread
and wasn't paying attention to the poster. I usually don't read any of
your posts. They are too sloppily written (you have no respect for the
written language, this ng or what is nominally topical; thus, I have no
respect for you). If you paid any attention to where the so-called
attribute was, you would have seen the missing text couldn't have been
your doing, unless you are a malicious a.shole who purposely leaves an
attribute while eliminating text deeply embedded in an article. You
aren't malicious; you're merely a slob. I'll spell out my complaint, and
maybe your pointy little head can comprehend what it's about.

I had noticed that recently in two threads prior to this one, what I had
posted was snipped, and I was attributed with the writings of someone
else. The third time this happened I posted my complaint.

When something gets written to the Internet, it lives forever. I'm not
the slob you are, and I care what is attributed to me. I have been
misquoted for what I have said, and it is troubling. To be quoted or
misquoted for something I haven't said exceeds troubling.

[1] If sloppy snipping must be assigned, Chuck is a more likely
candidate.

Reply to this Message

Richard Bollard - 27 Jan 2009 02:36 GMT

...

>Fuckwit,

...

As I understand it, this Australian word owes its popularity to the
Internet. It was exclusively Australian until, I believe, quite
recently.

Signature

Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.

Reply to this Message

Murray Arnow - 27 Jan 2009 02:44 GMT

>....
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Internet. It was exclusively Australian until, I believe, quite
>recently.

Taking the mickey, Richard?

Reply to this Message

Richard Bollard - 29 Jan 2009 03:56 GMT

>>....
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Taking the mickey, Richard?

Extracting the Michael? No.

Just thread drift.

Signature

Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.

Reply to this Message

the Omrud - 27 Jan 2009 08:31 GMT

> ....
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Internet. It was exclusively Australian until, I believe, quite
> recently.

I think it was brought to my attention by the scurrilous UK comic (not
comic strip) Viz.

Signature

David

Reply to this Message

James Hogg - 27 Jan 2009 09:13 GMT

>> ....
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>I think it was brought to my attention by the scurrilous UK comic (not
>comic strip) Viz.

The OED supports the hypothesis of an Australian origin (first
example from 1969) and suggests, not implausibly, that the word
is a compound of "f.ck" and "wit".

As an aside, I can point out that it's a very hard word to find
rhymes for.

James

Reply to this Message

Leslie Danks - 27 Jan 2009 10:15 GMT

>>> ....
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> As an aside, I can point out that it's a very hard word to find
> rhymes for.

That's just duckshit.

Signature

Les (BrE)

Reply to this Message

James Hogg - 27 Jan 2009 10:21 GMT

>>>> ....
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>That's just duckshit.

You see? It's not a perfect rhyme. Other less-than-100% attempts
can be found here:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.scottish/msg/b78e6d69ed0b4e5e

James

Reply to this Message

Raymond O'Hara - 19 Jan 2009 21:19 GMT

>>>> Any comments on this headline?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> sentence. And it's a headline, for Heaven's sake, and the meaning is
> clear.

Smart still can't make up for lack of experience.
Carriers require a lot of it. What we learned from the days of the Langley
they won't aquire overnight.

Reply to this Message

Chuck Riggs - 20 Jan 2009 16:12 GMT

>>>> Any comments on this headline?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>seems to be the besetting sin of the American right: which is why the US
>foot has so many scars and shot-holes in it.

Wrong, my landlubberly friend. Navies, when properly deployed, make
friends while maintaining control of the seas. The process is called
"showing the flag". The Yanks learned that trick from the Brits, among
others.

>As for the language, of course it would more logically be "We should be
>building a bigger navy: China is." But even that isn't really a formal
>sentence. And it's a headline, for Heaven's sake, and the meaning is
>clear.

If we should be building a bigger Navy because China is, I'd insert
the colon, but if we should be building a bigger Navy because of the
rising size and power of China as an economic and military power, I
wouldn't.

Signature

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

Reply to this Message

Mike Lyle - 20 Jan 2009 19:37 GMT

>>>>> Any comments on this headline?
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> "showing the flag". The Yanks learned that trick from the Brits, among
> others.

And that makes my analysis wrong exactly how? ...Or even approximately
how?

>> As for the language, of course it would more logically be "We should
>> be building a bigger navy: China is." But even that isn't really a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> rising size and power of China as an economic and military power, I
> wouldn't.

The original headline made it perfectly clear that the understood phrase
after "China is" was "building a bigger navy", not "increasing its
economic and military power".

Signature

Mike.

Reply to this Message

Chuck Riggs - 21 Jan 2009 15:54 GMT

>>>>>> Any comments on this headline?
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>And that makes my analysis wrong exactly how? ...Or even approximately
>how?

Your analysis sunk into the depths when you equated, or so it seemed,
the American Navy with the American Right or conservative movement.
You also insulted my country by saying the US foot has shot-holes in
it. There was no call for that.

>>> As for the language, of course it would more logically be "We should
>>> be building a bigger navy: China is." But even that isn't really a
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>after "China is" was "building a bigger navy", not "increasing its
>economic and military power".

You're the English scholar, not me. Are you trying to be helpful or
are you feeling cantankerous?
By the way, you made no comment on my "landlubbery friend", which I
was quite proud of, once I dredged it up.

Signature

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

Reply to this Message

tony cooper - 21 Jan 2009 17:10 GMT

>You also insulted my country by saying the US foot has shot-holes in
>it. There was no call for that.

If the truth is absolute defense against the charge of defamation of
character, then this is a completely defendable case against
defamation of country.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message

Mike Lyle - 21 Jan 2009 19:26 GMT

>>>>>>> Any comments on this headline?
>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> Your analysis sunk into the depths when you equated, or so it seemed,
> the American Navy with the American Right or conservative movement.

I did absolutely nothing of the sort, and I didn't even seem to. Read
the messages, and this time read them with proper attention. I was
agreeing with your fellow-citizen, Ray, in a statement about the
American political Right.

> You also insulted my country by saying the US foot has shot-holes in
> it. There was no call for that.

Nonsense. Since when have we not been permitted to criticize US
conservative policies? The unbelievably clumsy foreign policy of the US
Right has for years done immense damage, as much to American interests
as to others. You may disagree, but my right to say so is absolute.

>>>> As for the language, of course it would more logically be "We
>>>> should be building a bigger navy: China is." But even that isn't
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> You're the English scholar, not me. Are you trying to be helpful or
> are you feeling cantankerous?

I confess I don't really know why you say that. You proposed
alternatives, and I gave reasons for preferring one of them.

> By the way, you made no comment on my "landlubbery friend", which I
> was quite proud of, once I dredged it up.

Well, it seemed entirely irrelevant to my part of the discussion, but I
agree it's a good phrase.

Signature

Mike.

Reply to this Message

Chuck Riggs - 22 Jan 2009 15:18 GMT

<snip>

>> By the way, you made no comment on my "landlubbery friend", which I
>> was quite proud of, once I dredged it up.
>
>Well, it seemed entirely irrelevant to my part of the discussion, but I
>agree it's a good phrase.

Thank you.

Signature

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

Reply to this Message

Paul Wolff - 20 Jan 2009 20:35 GMT

>On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:46:09 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
><mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>rising size and power of China as an economic and military power, I
>wouldn't.

If we are going to punctuate, I'd prefer a dash. It seems more
appropriate when setting two statements in opposition to one another,
while the colon seems to belong more to exposition.

But I would prefer to see "more ships" in place of "a bigger navy". It's
shorter and clearer.

Thus: "We should build" [be building] "more ships -- China is".

Mind you, "Navy" alone does rather suggest the military arm, even though
a merchant navy and a fighting navy (what word am I overlooking?) are
equally possible. "Ships" is neutral, though a passing headline reader
is still perhaps less likely to infer the mercantile marine than the
more muscular kind.

Signature

Paul

Reply to this Message

J. J. Lodder - 19 Jan 2009 19:59 GMT

> Any comments on this headline?
>
> We Should Build a Bigger Navy
> China is.

How about the Swiss navy?

Jan

Reply to this Message

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 19 Jan 2009 20:55 GMT

>> Any comments on this headline?
>>
>> We Should Build a Bigger Navy
>> China is.
>
>How about the Swiss navy?

This picture shows about 10% of the "Swiss Navy":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patrouillenboot_80_-_Schweizer_Armee_-_Steel_P
arade_2006.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/a3fcrl

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message

J. J. Lodder - 19 Jan 2009 22:32 GMT

> >> Any comments on this headline?
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patrouillenboot_80_-_Schweizer_Armee_-_Steel_P
arade_2006.jpg
> or http://tinyurl.com/a3fcrl

Precisely.
If the Swiss build another one of those
America wil have to respond,

Jan

Reply to this Message

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 19 Jan 2009 23:02 GMT

>> >> Any comments on this headline?
>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>If the Swiss build another one of those
>America wil have to respond,

It would be interesting to see the US Navy trying to transport one of their
ships by road to Switzerland.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message

jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 20 Jan 2009 05:34 GMT

On Jan 19, 4:02 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:

...

> >> This picture shows about 10% of the "Swiss Navy":
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patrouillenboot_80_-_Schweizer_Arme...
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> It would be interesting to see the US Navy trying to transport one of their
> ships by road to Switzerland.

Road transportation is for pikers. If ships can carry aircraft, I
think aircraft should be allowed to carry ships.

--
Jerry Friedman

Reply to this Message

Ian Jackson - 20 Jan 2009 15:07 GMT

In message
<412d6d06-8cee-45a6-b0c6-7f667ffa32d3@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
"jerry_friedman@yahoo.com" <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> writes

>On Jan 19, 4:02 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>--
>Jerry Friedman

The Swiss do have quite a few pretty lakes where people can sail their
boats.

Signature

Ian

Reply to this Message

jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 20 Jan 2009 18:13 GMT

> In message
> <412d6d06-8cee-45a6-b0c6-7f667ffa3...@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> The Swiss do have quite a few pretty lakes where people can sail their
> boats.

I think that's what Peter had in mind. Getting a typical U. S. Navy
ship there would be harder than getting a one-masted catamaran there.

--
Jerry Friedman

Reply to this Message

Chuck Riggs - 20 Jan 2009 16:30 GMT

>On Jan 19, 4:02 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>Road transportation is for pikers. If ships can carry aircraft, I
>think aircraft should be allowed to carry ships.

Great minds think alike.

Signature

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

Reply to this Message

jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 20 Jan 2009 18:10 GMT

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:34:52 -0800 (PST), "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com"
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Great minds think alike.

As do yours and mine.

--
Jerry Friedman

Reply to this Message

Chuck Riggs - 20 Jan 2009 16:51 GMT

>>> >> Any comments on this headline?
>>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>It would be interesting to see the US Navy trying to transport one of their
>ships by road to Switzerland.

The USN could simply helicopter the, uh, Swiss Navy to Newport News
and slug it out.

Signature

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

Reply to this Message

J. J. Lodder - 20 Jan 2009 22:49 GMT

> >>> >> Any comments on this headline?
> >>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> The USN could simply helicopter the, uh, Swiss Navy to Newport News
> and slug it out.

The Swiss did it already,
and took the America Cup with them.

Now if that isn't a casus belli,

Jan

Reply to this Message

John Varela - 20 Jan 2009 19:35 GMT

> It would be interesting to see the US Navy trying to transport one of their
> ships by road to Switze

Tenochtitlan/Mexico City is over 7,000 feet/2,000 meters above sea
level, but Cortez was able to put a fleet on the lake. If a bunch
of late Mediaeval adventurers could do it, I expect the USN could do
it too.

Signature

John Varela
Trade OLD lamps for NEW for email

Reply to this Message

J. J. Lodder - 20 Jan 2009 22:48 GMT

> >> >> Any comments on this headline?
> >> >>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> It would be interesting to see the US Navy trying to transport one of their
> ships by road to Switzerland.

Why bother?
The Swiss build a navy too
should be argument enough,

Jan

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009

More naval journalism from the USA