Discussion:
Ambiguous headline
(too old to reply)
Richard Tobin
2018-05-25 22:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
An ambiguous headline:

"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News website).

-- Richard
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-05-25 23:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
Peter Moylan
2018-05-26 04:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
Anyway, it turns out that they're not close.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-05-26 07:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:07:31 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
"close" han be interpreted as a verb or an adjective,

"Polls close": the polling stations close.
"Polls close": the exit polls predict a close result.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-05-26 10:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:07:31 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
"close" han be interpreted as a verb or an adjective,
"Polls close": the polling stations close.
"Polls close": the exit polls predict a close result.
--
Yes, in isolation. But in context everybody knows what the
intention is.
CDB
2018-05-26 12:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
"close" han be interpreted as a verb or an adjective,
"Polls close": the polling stations close.
"Polls close": the exit polls predict a close result.
Yes, in isolation. But in context everybody knows what the
intention is.
And that's why God invented whooshes.
Sam Plusnet
2018-05-26 19:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
   "Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote"  (BBC News website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
"close" han be interpreted as a verb or an adjective,
"Polls close": the polling stations close.
"Polls close": the exit polls predict a close result.
Yes, in isolation. But in context everybody knows what the
intention is.
And that's why God invented whooshes.
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
--
Sam Plusnet
CDB
2018-05-27 12:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News
website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
"close" han be interpreted as a verb or an adjective,
"Polls close": the polling stations close. "Polls close": the
exit polls predict a close result.
Yes, in isolation. But in context everybody knows what the
intention is.
And that's why God invented whooshes.
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
Sounds like old stoner talk, but all I meant was "We plan, God laughs".

OK, maybe not all.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-27 13:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by Sam Plusnet
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
<grokking>
Post by CDB
Sounds like old stoner talk, but all I meant was "We plan, God laughs".
Was that someone's "improvement" on "Man proposes, God disposes"?
Quinn C
2018-05-27 16:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by Sam Plusnet
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
<grokking>
Post by CDB
Sounds like old stoner talk, but all I meant was "We plan, God laughs".
Was that someone's "improvement" on "Man proposes, God disposes"?
It looked to me like a translation from German.

The actual saying is:
Der Mensch denkt, Gott lenkt. (Man thinks, God steers.)

A humorous past tense version is:
Der Mensch dachte, Gott lachte. (Man thought, God laughed.)

The actual past tense of the two verbs is dachte & lenkte, one being a
"strong" verb while the other isn't.

Those past tense versions nicely illustrate where the English "gh"
spellings come from.
--
Woman is a pair of ovaries with a human being attached, whereas
man is a human being furnished with a pair of testes.
-- Rudolf Virchow
CDB
2018-05-27 17:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by Sam Plusnet
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
<grokking>
Post by CDB
Sounds like old stoner talk, but all I meant was "We plan, God laughs".
Was that someone's "improvement" on "Man proposes, God disposes"?
It looked to me like a translation from German.
The actual saying is: Der Mensch denkt, Gott lenkt. (Man thinks, God
steers.)
A humorous past tense version is: Der Mensch dachte, Gott lachte.
(Man thought, God laughed.)
The actual past tense of the two verbs is dachte & lenkte, one being
a "strong" verb while the other isn't.
Those past tense versions nicely illustrate where the English "gh"
spellings come from.
Or at least that German "ch" came from the same place.
J. J. Lodder
2018-05-27 20:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by Sam Plusnet
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
<grokking>
Post by CDB
Sounds like old stoner talk, but all I meant was "We plan, God laughs".
Was that someone's "improvement" on "Man proposes, God disposes"?
It looked to me like a translation from German.
Der Mensch denkt, Gott lenkt. (Man thinks, God steers.)
Or Dutch: "de mens wikt, god beschikt'
(Humans deliberate, god decides)

Jan
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-05-28 20:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by Sam Plusnet
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
<grokking>
Post by CDB
Sounds like old stoner talk, but all I meant was "We plan, God laughs".
Was that someone's "improvement" on "Man proposes, God disposes"?
It looked to me like a translation from German.
Der Mensch denkt, Gott lenkt. (Man thinks, God steers.)
Or Dutch: "de mens wikt, god beschikt'
(Humans deliberate, god decides)
Or Danish: "mennesket spår, Gud rå(de)r"
(Humans foretell, God decides)

/Anders, Denmark.
Sam Plusnet
2018-05-27 21:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote"  (BBC News
website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
"close" han be interpreted as a verb or an adjective,
"Polls close": the polling stations close. "Polls close": the
exit polls predict a close result.
Yes, in isolation. But in context everybody knows what the intention
is.
And that's why God invented whooshes.
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
Sounds like old stoner talk,
R. A. Heinlein - Stranger in a Strange Land.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter Moylan
2018-05-28 02:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
Sounds like old stoner talk,
R. A. Heinlein - Stranger in a Strange Land.
Yes, for the word "grok"; but this is the first time I've heard of
anyone grokking a whoosh. You're either whooshed, or you grok.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
CDB
2018-05-28 10:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
Sounds like old stoner talk,
R. A. Heinlein - Stranger in a Strange Land.
Yes, for the word "grok"; but this is the first time I've heard of
anyone grokking a whoosh. You're either whooshed, or you grok.
For all we know, "whoosh" is Martian for "Kool-aid".
Whiskers
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
Sounds like old stoner talk,
R. A. Heinlein - Stranger in a Strange Land.
Yes, for the word "grok"; but this is the first time I've heard of
anyone grokking a whoosh. You're either whooshed, or you grok.
Omnipotent omniscient deities can't be whooshed. By definition,
they grok all.
--
^^^^^^^^^^
Whiskers
~~~~~~~~~~


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
J. J. Lodder
2018-05-28 12:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
Sounds like old stoner talk,
R. A. Heinlein - Stranger in a Strange Land.
Yes, for the word "grok"; but this is the first time I've heard of
anyone grokking a whoosh. You're either whooshed, or you grok.
Omnipotent omniscient deities can't be whooshed. By definition,
they grok all.
But can they be whooshed if they want to?

Jan
Richard Tobin
2018-05-28 12:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Yes, for the word "grok"; but this is the first time I've heard of
anyone grokking a whoosh. You're either whooshed, or you grok.
Omnipotent omniscient deities can't be whooshed. By definition,
they grok all.
Can God come up with something so difficult he can't grok it?

-- Richard
J. J. Lodder
2018-05-28 14:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Yes, for the word "grok"; but this is the first time I've heard of
anyone grokking a whoosh. You're either whooshed, or you grok.
Omnipotent omniscient deities can't be whooshed. By definition,
they grok all.
Can God come up with something so difficult he can't grok it?
Brouwer and Hilbert had a fundamental dispute
over the grok-ability of god. Brouwer had questions,
Hilbert said god could grok the answers, Brouwer disagreed.

Alan Turing sided with Brouwer,
and proved it by builing a machine
that not even god can grok the halt of,

Jan
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-05-28 20:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Yes, for the word "grok"; but this is the first time I've heard of
anyone grokking a whoosh. You're either whooshed, or you grok.
Omnipotent omniscient deities can't be whooshed. By definition,
they grok all.
Can God come up with something so difficult he can't grok it?
Brouwer and Hilbert had a fundamental dispute
over the grok-ability of god. Brouwer had questions,
Hilbert said god could grok the answers, Brouwer disagreed.
Alan Turing sided with Brouwer,
and proved it by builing a machine
that not even god can grok the halt of,
You should not misunderestimate God.

/Anders, Denmark.
J. J. Lodder
2018-05-28 20:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Yes, for the word "grok"; but this is the first time I've heard of
anyone grokking a whoosh. You're either whooshed, or you grok.
Omnipotent omniscient deities can't be whooshed. By definition,
they grok all.
Can God come up with something so difficult he can't grok it?
Brouwer and Hilbert had a fundamental dispute
over the grok-ability of god. Brouwer had questions,
Hilbert said god could grok the answers, Brouwer disagreed.
Alan Turing sided with Brouwer,
and proved it by builing a machine
that not even god can grok the halt of,
You should not misunderestimate God.
Why not?

Jan
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-05-30 21:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Yes, for the word "grok"; but this is the first time I've heard of
anyone grokking a whoosh. You're either whooshed, or you grok.
Omnipotent omniscient deities can't be whooshed. By definition,
they grok all.
Can God come up with something so difficult he can't grok it?
Brouwer and Hilbert had a fundamental dispute
over the grok-ability of god. Brouwer had questions,
Hilbert said god could grok the answers, Brouwer disagreed.
Alan Turing sided with Brouwer,
and proved it by builing a machine
that not even god can grok the halt of,
You should not misunderestimate God.
Why not?
As Clarke put it: Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic.

In this case: Just because the halting problem cannot be decided
by an algorithm, I see no reason why God should be unable to be
an oracle for halting. Him being omniscient rather requires he is.

/Anders, Denmark.
Madhu
2018-05-29 03:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Brouwer and Hilbert had a fundamental dispute
over the grok-ability of god. Brouwer had questions,
Hilbert said god could grok the answers, Brouwer disagreed.
I haven't come across Brouwer's philosophical speculations maybe you
have a pointer
Post by J. J. Lodder
Alan Turing sided with Brouwer,
and proved it by builing a machine
that not even god can grok the halt of,
Turing only proved that god cannot devise an algorithm to solve the
problem - within the model of computation in which the problem is
defined.

But Cantor already had sets that even god could not count and all the
others are variations on this theme. When I was a kid freshly armed
with this argument someone pointed out to me that god does not need to
enumerate all the reals between 0 and 1 to me - he could just mark the
points off on a ruler and be done with that.

Theoretically an omnicient god could still decide whether any particular
given program will halt or not, and he could be right. You just don't
have a way of checking it without running the program (possibly forever)
Peter Moylan
2018-05-29 03:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Yes, for the word "grok"; but this is the first time I've heard of
anyone grokking a whoosh. You're either whooshed, or you grok.
Omnipotent omniscient deities can't be whooshed. By definition,
they grok all.
Can God come up with something so difficult he can't grok it?
He came up with Hen Hanna, didn't he?
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Quinn C
2018-05-28 17:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
Sounds like old stoner talk,
R. A. Heinlein - Stranger in a Strange Land.
Yes, for the word "grok"; but this is the first time I've heard of
anyone grokking a whoosh. You're either whooshed, or you grok.
Omnipotent omniscient deities can't be whooshed. By definition,
they grok all.
Presumably, including the state of a human being whooshed.
--
... man muss oft schon Wissenschaft infrage stellen bei den Wirt-
schaftsmenschen [...] das Denken wird haeufig blockiert von einem
ideologischen Ueberbau [...] Es ist halt in vielen Teilen eher
eine Religion als eine Wissenschaft. -- Heiner Flassbeck
CDB
2018-05-28 10:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by CDB
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News
website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's
been phrased for every election and referendum I can
remember.
"close" han be interpreted as a verb or an adjective,
the exit polls predict a close result.
Yes, in isolation. But in context everybody knows what the
intention is.
And that's why God invented whooshes.
I'm trying to imagine an omniscient & omnipotent deity groking a whoosh.
Sounds like old stoner talk,
R. A. Heinlein - Stranger in a Strange Land.
Yes. Martian for "drink", as I recall. That was one of the last of his
books I read. But the word was taken up and used, after the first
splash (IME) by stoned hippies. It was always a little nerdy for
general use.
occam
2018-05-28 08:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
   "Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote"  (BBC News website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
"close" han be interpreted as a verb or an adjective,
"Polls close": the polling stations close.
"Polls close": the exit polls predict a close result.
Yes, in isolation. But in context everybody knows what the
intention is.
And that's why God invented whooshes.
God invented whooshes? I thought it was the Committee. You live and learn.
CDB
2018-05-28 11:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by CDB
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News
website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
"close" han be interpreted as a verb or an adjective,
"Polls close": the polling stations close. "Polls close": the
exit polls predict a close result.
Yes, in isolation. But in context everybody knows what the
intention is.
And that's why God invented whooshes.
God invented whooshes? I thought it was the Committee. You live and learn.
It has been suggested that there is no essential difference.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-28 13:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by occam
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
God invented whooshes? I thought it was the Committee. You live and learn.
It has been suggested that there is no essential difference.
Except that the Committee doesn't exist.
Sam Plusnet
2018-05-28 20:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by occam
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
God invented whooshes? I thought it was the Committee. You live and learn.
It has been suggested that there is no essential difference.
Except that the Committee doesn't exist.
God only knows if that is true.
--
Sam Plusnet
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-05-28 20:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by occam
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
God invented whooshes? I thought it was the Committee. You live and learn.
It has been suggested that there is no essential difference.
Except that the Committee doesn't exist.
And why would that be an essential difference?

/Anders, Denmark.
Richard Tobin
2018-05-28 22:43:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by occam
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
God invented whooshes? I thought it was the Committee. You live and learn.
It has been suggested that there is no essential difference.
Except that the Committee doesn't exist.
A most perfect committee must exist, by the ontological argument.

-- Richard
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-05-28 22:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
Post by occam
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
God invented whooshes? I thought it was the Committee. You live and learn.
It has been suggested that there is no essential difference.
Except that the Committee doesn't exist.
A most perfect committee must exist, by the ontological argument.
-- Richard
No. The ontological argument only tells you that the most perfect
Committee includes existence amongst its perfections. It doesn't
tell you that such a Committee actually exists. Moreover, one has
to consider that for the Committee of which we speak existence, or
at least provable existence, may not be a perfection at all. For if the
Committee is known to exist it must instantly cease to exist.
Katy Jennison
2018-05-28 14:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
God invented whooshes? I thought it was the Committee. You live and learn.
There's a difference?
--
Katy Jennison
J. J. Lodder
2018-05-28 15:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by occam
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
God invented whooshes? I thought it was the Committee. You live and learn.
There's a difference?
The Committee can't vanish in a puff of logic,

Jan
occam
2018-05-30 15:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by occam
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
God invented whooshes? I thought it was the Committee. You live and learn.
There's a difference?
The Committee can't vanish in a puff of logic,
However logic can vanish with one puff of God. ('puff' implies the
passage of time, which logic alone cannot explain. )
J. J. Lodder
2018-05-30 20:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by occam
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
God invented whooshes? I thought it was the Committee. You live and learn.
There's a difference?
The Committee can't vanish in a puff of logic,
However logic can vanish with one puff of God. ('puff' implies the
passage of time, which logic alone cannot explain. )
And worse, one puff of god can make all reason vanish as well,

Jan
Richard Yates
2018-05-30 21:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by occam
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by occam
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
God invented whooshes? I thought it was the Committee. You live and learn.
There's a difference?
The Committee can't vanish in a puff of logic,
However logic can vanish with one puff of God. ('puff' implies the
passage of time, which logic alone cannot explain. )
And worse, one puff of god can make all reason vanish as well,
There is an odd point in the claims of godders where their statements
seem to be the last line of a reductio ad absurdum argument (one that
begins with the premise "God is omniscient and omnipotent"), but are
not intended to be so.

They think "QED the argument is proven" and I think "QED the premise
is ridiculous".
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-05-30 22:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Yates
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by occam
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by occam
Post by CDB
And that's why God invented whooshes.
God invented whooshes? I thought it was the Committee. You live and learn.
There's a difference?
The Committee can't vanish in a puff of logic,
However logic can vanish with one puff of God. ('puff' implies the
passage of time, which logic alone cannot explain. )
And worse, one puff of god can make all reason vanish as well,
There is an odd point in the claims of godders where their statements
seem to be the last line of a reductio ad absurdum argument (one that
begins with the premise "God is omniscient and omnipotent"), but are
not intended to be so.
They think "QED the argument is proven" and I think "QED the premise
is ridiculous".
I hardly think it's restricted to 'godders' (who or whatever they may be!)
Dark matter's existence is a classic argument of this type, for example!
Peter Moylan
2018-05-27 10:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:07:31 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
"close" han be interpreted as a verb or an adjective,
"Polls close": the polling stations close. "Polls close": the exit
polls predict a close result.
Yes, in isolation. But in context everybody knows what the intention
is.
The context, in my case, was set by early predictions that the result
was going to be close. Thus, the most natural interpretation of "polls
close" was "close" (adj).

The fact that the predictions were wrong is irrelevant, because that
didn't become clear until afterwards.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-05-27 11:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:07:31 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
"close" han be interpreted as a verb or an adjective,
"Polls close": the polling stations close. "Polls close": the exit
polls predict a close result.
Yes, in isolation. But in context everybody knows what the intention
is.
The context, in my case, was set by early predictions that the result
was going to be close. Thus, the most natural interpretation of "polls
close" was "close" (adj).
The fact that the predictions were wrong is irrelevant, because that
didn't become clear until afterwards.
There never were such predictions. Opinion polls taken as far back as
2014 have consistently shown a majority in favour of liberalisation of
abortion law and since the announcement of the referendum there has
not been a single poll with less than 56% in favour. The trouncing may
have been greater than expected in the real thing but the naysayers
were always a street behind and the result never in doubt. I can only
conclude that your source was campaign propaganda rather than fact!
Peter Moylan
2018-05-27 11:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:07:31 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News
website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
"close" han be interpreted as a verb or an adjective,
"Polls close": the polling stations close. "Polls close": the
exit polls predict a close result.
Yes, in isolation. But in context everybody knows what the
intention is.
The context, in my case, was set by early predictions that the
result was going to be close. Thus, the most natural interpretation
of "polls close" was "close" (adj).
The fact that the predictions were wrong is irrelevant, because
that didn't become clear until afterwards.
There never were such predictions. Opinion polls taken as far back
as 2014 have consistently shown a majority in favour of
liberalisation of abortion law and since the announcement of the
referendum there has not been a single poll with less than 56% in
favour. The trouncing may have been greater than expected in the real
thing but the naysayers were always a street behind and the result
never in doubt. I can only conclude that your source was campaign
propaganda rather than fact!
My source -- whom I can't name because he was just one more unmemorable
talking head -- wasn't pushing any particular line. He was saying that
the result was hard to predict because of uncertainty over who was going
to turn up to vote. If, for example, young people had not bothered
voting then the proposal might well have been lost.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-05-27 12:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:07:31 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News
website).
Huh? What's ambiguous about that? It's exactly as it's been
phrased for every election and referendum I can remember.
"close" han be interpreted as a verb or an adjective,
"Polls close": the polling stations close. "Polls close": the
exit polls predict a close result.
Yes, in isolation. But in context everybody knows what the
intention is.
The context, in my case, was set by early predictions that the
result was going to be close. Thus, the most natural interpretation
of "polls close" was "close" (adj).
The fact that the predictions were wrong is irrelevant, because
that didn't become clear until afterwards.
There never were such predictions. Opinion polls taken as far back
as 2014 have consistently shown a majority in favour of
liberalisation of abortion law and since the announcement of the
referendum there has not been a single poll with less than 56% in
favour. The trouncing may have been greater than expected in the real
thing but the naysayers were always a street behind and the result
never in doubt. I can only conclude that your source was campaign
propaganda rather than fact!
My source -- whom I can't name because he was just one more unmemorable
talking head -- wasn't pushing any particular line. He was saying that
the result was hard to predict because of uncertainty over who was going
to turn up to vote. If, for example, young people had not bothered
voting then the proposal might well have been lost.
The likelihood of young people not turning up to vote for what they
were the most vocal advocates of (it is believed that under 25s were
92% in favour subject to complete analysis) was basically zero. Your
source may not have been openly biased but the message was
definitely the desperate hope of a minority rather than reasonable
assessment of the probabilities.
Garrett Wollman
2018-05-27 19:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The likelihood of young people not turning up to vote for what they
were the most vocal advocates of (it is believed that under 25s were
92% in favour subject to complete analysis) was basically zero.
Happens on this side of the Atlantic all the damned time. It's very
frustrating.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
J. J. Lodder
2018-05-27 20:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The likelihood of young people not turning up to vote for what they
were the most vocal advocates of (it is believed that under 25s were
92% in favour subject to complete analysis) was basically zero.
Happens on this side of the Atlantic all the damned time. It's very
frustrating.
The complaining about the result, afterwards, is even more annoying,

Jan
Peter Moylan
2018-05-28 02:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The likelihood of young people not turning up to vote for what
they were the most vocal advocates of (it is believed that under
25s were 92% in favour subject to complete analysis) was basically
zero.
Happens on this side of the Atlantic all the damned time. It's very
frustrating.
The same here. The voting age was lowered as a result of the Vietnam
war, and the argument that it was immoral to send someone to be killed
when they were too young to vote. (The obvious alternative of raising
the conscription age was not considered.) IIRC -- but I might be
misremembering -- voting was initially not compulsory for 18- to
20-year-olds, and whether for this or another reason many of them didn't
bother to vote.

Then they discovered that they didn't have to vote for as long as they
stayed off the radar and didn't register to vote. As a result we still
have a big pool of young people who don't bother to vote. And who criticise
the decisions of the people they didn't vote for or against.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
John Ritson
2018-05-28 09:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
The likelihood of young people not turning up to vote for what they
were the most vocal advocates of (it is believed that under 25s were
92% in favour subject to complete analysis) was basically zero.
Happens on this side of the Atlantic all the damned time. It's very
frustrating.
True millennials recognise that Facebook, Amazon, Google, and the
security services know their opinions on every subject already, so
regard actually voting as superfluous.
--
John Ritson

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-27 13:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Moylan
The context, in my case, was set by early predictions that the result
was going to be close. Thus, the most natural interpretation of "polls
close" was "close" (adj).
The fact that the predictions were wrong is irrelevant, because that
didn't become clear until afterwards.
There never were such predictions. Opinion polls taken as far back as
2014 have consistently shown a majority in favour of liberalisation of
abortion law and since the announcement of the referendum there has
not been a single poll with less than 56% in favour. The trouncing may
have been greater than expected in the real thing but the naysayers
were always a street behind and the result never in doubt. I can only
conclude that your source was campaign propaganda rather than fact!
Or Australian newspapers/TV. (Can you figure out why that came to mind?)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-05-25 23:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News website).
-- Richard
I had to read that three times before I saw the ambiguity. I was biassed
by prior knowledge. I had just been reading a news report which included
the result of an exit poll so I knew that the predicted result is 69.4%
'Yes' and 30.6% 'No'. So I knew that the polls had closed and that the
exit polls are not close.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
s***@gowanhill.com
2018-05-26 11:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News website).
It should be "poll closes" which removes the ambiguity, and there is only one poll (referendum).

If a Twitter poll was 76% and a Facebook poll was 74% then the polls would be close.

Owain
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-05-26 11:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News website).
It should be "poll closes" which removes the ambiguity, and there is only one poll (referendum).
If a Twitter poll was 76% and a Facebook poll was 74% then the polls would be close.
Nonsense. If there multiple polling stations, multiple polls are being
taken. That they all, on this occasion, unlike a General Election,
contribute to a single result is neither here nor there.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-05-26 11:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Richard Tobin
"Polls close in Ireland's abortion vote" (BBC News website).
It should be "poll closes" which removes the ambiguity, and there is only one poll (referendum).
Yes. However, "polls" seems to be used to mean "polling stations".

A few quotes from a live blog on the Irish Times newspaper website:
https://liveblog.irishtimes.com/c273bf43d6/Polls-close-in-referendum-on-Eighth-Amendment-/

06:57
....
It’s just about 7am now which means voting time is here so grab you
passport/driving licence and get down to your local polling station.
They will remain open until 10pm tonight.

07:08
....
The polls will open at 7 am and close at 10pm.

21:31 Just a half an hour left now until the polls close.

Don’t forget that The Irish Times will be publishing an exit poll
tonight.

Exit polls have demonstrated a high degree of accuracy in the past.
Today’s poll is estimated to have a margin of error of +/- 1.5 per
cent.

22:00 Polls have now closed in the referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
If a Twitter poll was 76% and a Facebook poll was 74% then the polls would be close.
Owain
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Jerry Friedman
2018-05-26 12:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5/26/18 5:37 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://liveblog.irishtimes.com/c273bf43d6/Polls-close-in-referendum-on-Eighth-Amendment-/
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
22:00 Polls have now closed in the referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
...

Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-05-26 13:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 26 May 2018 06:52:44 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://liveblog.irishtimes.com/c273bf43d6/Polls-close-in-referendum-on-Eighth-Amendment-/
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
22:00 Polls have now closed in the referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
...
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
The Republic of Ireland currently has 35 amendments to its Constitution.
The recent referendum was for an amendment to repeal a previous
amendment (the 8th). If all goes as expected the 8th will be repealed by
the 36th Amendment.

The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland came into force in 1937.
Other countries have a head's start over Ireland in the number of
amendments.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Jerry Friedman
2018-05-26 13:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 26 May 2018 06:52:44 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://liveblog.irishtimes.com/c273bf43d6/Polls-close-in-referendum-on-Eighth-Amendment-/
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
22:00 Polls have now closed in the referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
...
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
The Republic of Ireland currently has 35 amendments to its Constitution.
The recent referendum was for an amendment to repeal a previous
amendment (the 8th). If all goes as expected the 8th will be repealed by
the 36th Amendment.
The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland came into force in 1937.
Other countries have a head's start over Ireland in the number of
amendments.
Ah, thanks.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-26 15:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 26 May 2018 06:52:44 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://liveblog.irishtimes.com/c273bf43d6/Polls-close-in-referendum-on-Eighth-Amendment-/
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
22:00 Polls have now closed in the referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
...
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
The Republic of Ireland currently has 35 amendments to its Constitution.
That's close to 50% more than the US Constitution (27, which includes
Prohibition and Repeal, so it's more like 25), and we've been at it
for 150 more years than Ireland -- and our first ten (the Bill of Rights)
are barely additions, since their inclusion was a condition on the
ratification of the Constitution by a number of the state legislatures
in 1787-89.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The recent referendum was for an amendment to repeal a previous
amendment (the 8th). If all goes as expected the 8th will be repealed by
the 36th Amendment.
The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland came into force in 1937.
Other countries have a head's start over Ireland in the number of
amendments.
Hmm. ObAUE: We say "head start."
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-05-26 16:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 26 May 2018 08:05:07 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 26 May 2018 06:52:44 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://liveblog.irishtimes.com/c273bf43d6/Polls-close-in-referendum-on-Eighth-Amendment-/
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
22:00 Polls have now closed in the referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
...
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
The Republic of Ireland currently has 35 amendments to its Constitution.
That's close to 50% more than the US Constitution (27, which includes
Prohibition and Repeal, so it's more like 25), and we've been at it
for 150 more years than Ireland -- and our first ten (the Bill of Rights)
are barely additions, since their inclusion was a condition on the
ratification of the Constitution by a number of the state legislatures
in 1787-89.
It would take some time and probably more knowledge and understanding
than I have to compare the constitutional amendments in the USA and the
ROI. It is possible that some of the matters dealt with by amendments in
the ROI would have been dealt with by decisions of the Supreme Court in
the USA rather then being subject to referendums.

One example is the right to same sex marriages. In the US that right was
the result of a SCOTUS ruling. In the ROI it needed a constitutional
amendment approved by a referendum.

Eight of the amendments in the ROI are to do with membership of the EU
and its predecessor instructions. It required amendments to permit the
government to ratify the relevant treaties.

Here is more information than most people need!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Ireland#List_of_amendments_and_referendums
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The recent referendum was for an amendment to repeal a previous
amendment (the 8th). If all goes as expected the 8th will be repealed by
the 36th Amendment.
The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland came into force in 1937.
Other countries have a head's start over Ireland in the number of
amendments.
Hmm. ObAUE: We say "head start."
So do we!
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-05-26 16:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 26 May 2018 17:38:27 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Eight of the amendments in the ROI are to do with membership of the EU
and its predecessor instructions. It required amendments to permit the
....predecessor institutions....
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-26 17:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 26 May 2018 08:05:07 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 26 May 2018 06:52:44 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
The Republic of Ireland currently has 35 amendments to its Constitution.
That's close to 50% more than the US Constitution (27, which includes
Prohibition and Repeal, so it's more like 25), and we've been at it
for 150 more years than Ireland -- and our first ten (the Bill of Rights)
are barely additions, since their inclusion was a condition on the
ratification of the Constitution by a number of the state legislatures
in 1787-89.
It would take some time and probably more knowledge and understanding
than I have to compare the constitutional amendments in the USA and the
ROI. It is possible that some of the matters dealt with by amendments in
the ROI would have been dealt with by decisions of the Supreme Court in
the USA rather then being subject to referendums.
Public referendum isn't one of the methods of amending the US Constitution,
though several states can do it that way (including NJ):

[separating linebreaks added by me]

"Article. V.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,

"or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,

"which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,

"or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

"[Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;]
(this was how they punted the slavery problem down a generation -- 30 years)

"and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
(I don't know what imagined problem this refers to; how could Lincoln
claim that the Secession wasn't legitimate, if each of the Seceders did
so by its own Consent?)
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
One example is the right to same sex marriages. In the US that right was
the result of a SCOTUS ruling. In the ROI it needed a constitutional
amendment approved by a referendum.
Regulation of marriages is not within the province of the US Constitution.
It may be done in some state constitutions, but before the SCOTUS ruling
various states had simply changed their laws.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Eight of the amendments in the ROI are to do with membership of the EU
and its predecessor instructions. It required amendments to permit the
government to ratify the relevant treaties.
The US Constitution requires treaties to be ratified by the Senate. That's
why Trump could screw up the Iran deal -- Obama knew that the Republican
Senate would not approve anything he offered them, so it was done as an
"agreement" instead. Likewise the "Paris Accords" on climate change. The
US hasn't subscribed, but many states have.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland came into force in 1937.
Other countries have a head's start over Ireland in the number of
amendments.
Hmm. ObAUE: We say "head start."
So do we!
That's a _really_ exclusive "we" -- excluding the speaker!
Rich Ulrich
2018-05-26 20:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 26 May 2018 10:12:56 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"[Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;]
(this was how they punted the slavery problem down a generation -- 30 years)
From 1788 to 1808 is a punt of 20 years.

People do forget the 10 years of a failed start, the
Articles of Confederation. (It was too weak to work.)

US constitution, Wikipedia -
Created September 17, 1787
Ratified June 21, 1788
Date effective March 4, 1789; 229 years ago
--
Rich Ulrich
Garrett Wollman
2018-05-26 16:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The Republic of Ireland currently has 35 amendments to its Constitution.
That's close to 50% more than the US Constitution (27, which includes
Prohibition and Repeal, so it's more like 25), and we've been at it
for 150 more years than Ireland -- and our first ten (the Bill of Rights)
are barely additions, since their inclusion was a condition on the
ratification of the Constitution by a number of the state legislatures
in 1787-89.
Yes, but Ireland isn't a federal republic, so its government has
competency in many more matters than the US federal government
(theoretically) does. A better comparison would be state
constitutions, but the practice among most states is to restate their
constitutions, giving effect to amendments as they are enacted, rather
than appending them to the original text, as is done with the federal
constitution. California's constitution (1849) has been amended
several hundred times, but you won't easily find a list of those
hundred amendments -- some of which were merely to prune deadwood and
resolve conflicts created by hundreds of previous amendments. Most of
the other states I checked were similar, although a few states, like
New Jersey, have a habit of just adopting new constitutions. New
Hampshire has the opportunity for a constitutional convention every
seven years that can propose wholesale revisions or batches of
amendments, but lately has voted not to hold it.

The Massachusetts Constitution (1780, so slightly older than the
federal) has 120 amendments, and uses the ledger style so there
actually is an "Amendment CXX" at the very end of the text. Rhode
Island was governed by royal charter from 1663 to 1842, when the state
enacted its first formal constitution; that document was replaced
wholesale in 1984.

According to Wikipedia, the Constitution of Alabama (1901) is the
longest, with over 310,000 words and 926 amendments. The Constitution
of Vermont (1793) is the shortest, 8,295 words -- because Vermont is
one of the few states not to have adopted citizens' initiative,[1] the
process for amendment is quite onerous and very few amendments have
ever been enacted.

-GAWollman

[1] One of what have become known as "the Progressive Era reforms",
along with referendum and recall, which were supposed to make state
governments more responsive to the purported wishes of the people.
It's an interesting contrast, because Vermont practices a very strong
form of direct democracy at the local level, but the state government
operates exclusively on the representative principle.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Sam Plusnet
2018-05-26 19:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 26 May 2018 06:52:44 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://liveblog.irishtimes.com/c273bf43d6/Polls-close-in-referendum-on-Eighth-Amendment-/
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
22:00 Polls have now closed in the referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
...
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
The Republic of Ireland currently has 35 amendments to its Constitution.
The recent referendum was for an amendment to repeal a previous
amendment (the 8th). If all goes as expected the 8th will be repealed by
the 36th Amendment.
The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland came into force in 1937.
Other countries have a head's start over Ireland in the number of
amendments.
It must be time to issue a 2.0 version & incorporate all those
amendments into a new issue.
--
Sam Plusnet
Mark Brader
2018-05-26 22:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The Republic of Ireland currently has 35 amendments to its Constitution.
No, there are 29. The sequence numbers are assigned *before* it's known
whether the attempted amendment is going to succeed. See the list at:

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/DOT/eng/Historical_Information/The_Constitution/Constitution_of_Ireland_-_Bunreacht_na_h%C3%89ireann.html

If Wikipedia is correct, the US would be up to Amendment 33 rather
than 27 if they numbered their amendments when they were passed by
Congress instead of if-and-when they were ratified.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland came into force in 1937.
That's the Constitution of Ireland (or the Bunreacht na hÉireann).
Despite the common usage in Britain, there is no country named "the
Republic of Ireland". See Article 4.
--
Mark Brader | "I had never thought of Jesus as being
***@vex.net | a variety of grape plant, but
Toronto | if you put it that way..." --Jan Sand

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-05-26 23:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The Republic of Ireland currently has 35 amendments to its Constitution.
No, there are 29. The sequence numbers are assigned *before* it's known
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/DOT/eng/Historical_Information/The_Constitution/Constitution_of_Ireland_-_Bunreacht_na_h%C3%89ireann.html
If Wikipedia is correct, the US would be up to Amendment 33 rather
than 27 if they numbered their amendments when they were passed by
Congress instead of if-and-when they were ratified.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland came into force in 1937.
That's the Constitution of Ireland (or the Bunreacht na hÉireann).
Despite the common usage in Britain, there is no country named "the
Republic of Ireland". See Article 4.
However:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948

The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 (No. 22 of 1948) is an Act of the
Oireachtas which declared that Ireland may be officially described
as the Republic of Ireland,...
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Mark Brader
2018-05-27 03:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
That's the Constitution of Ireland (or the Bunreacht na hÉireann).
Despite the common usage in Britain, there is no country named "the
Republic of Ireland". See Article 4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 (No. 22 of 1948) is an Act of the
Oireachtas which declared that Ireland may be officially described
as the Republic of Ireland,...
Better yet:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1948/act/22/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2

Which says:

# It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be
# the Republic of Ireland.

To which I say (1) Huh -- I did not know that. Thanks. (2) It's a pity
they capitalized the R -- that's wrong. And (3) even so, this still
doesn't affect the title of their constitution.
--
Mark Brader "They're trying to invent a new crime:
Toronto interference with a business model."
***@vex.net --Bruce Schneier

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-05-27 14:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
That's the Constitution of Ireland (or the Bunreacht na hÉireann).
Despite the common usage in Britain, there is no country named "the
Republic of Ireland". See Article 4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 (No. 22 of 1948) is an Act of the
Oireachtas which declared that Ireland may be officially described
as the Republic of Ireland,...
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1948/act/22/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2
# It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be
# the Republic of Ireland.
That uses the word "description" whereas the constitution uses "name":
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en#part2

Article 4
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.

It seems that both exist in parallel. Using the description, "Republic
of Ireland", rather than the name "Ireland" avoids confusion between
Ireland, the geographical area, and Ireland, the state.

Unoffically, the state is often referred to as the "Irish Republic".
Post by Mark Brader
To which I say (1) Huh -- I did not know that. Thanks. (2) It's a pity
they capitalized the R -- that's wrong. And (3) even so, this still
doesn't affect the title of their constitution.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Richard Tobin
2018-05-27 14:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
# It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be
# the Republic of Ireland.
To which I say (1) Huh -- I did not know that. Thanks. (2) It's a pity
they capitalized the R -- that's wrong.
I don't see why specifying capital letters is any more wrong then
specifying what the description of the state is. Both are things
a government can assert but not enforce.

-- Richard
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-05-27 17:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
That's the Constitution of Ireland (or the Bunreacht na hÉireann).
Despite the common usage in Britain, there is no country named "the
Republic of Ireland". See Article 4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948
The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 (No. 22 of 1948) is an Act of the
Oireachtas which declared that Ireland may be officially described
as the Republic of Ireland,...
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1948/act/22/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2
# It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be
# the Republic of Ireland.
To which I say (1) Huh -- I did not know that. Thanks. (2) It's a pity
they capitalized the R -- that's wrong.
I'm puzzled by that statement.

Is it wrong to capitalise "commonwealth" in
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth of Australia
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
or "kingdom" in
Kingdom of Bhutan?

They are all proper names. In English it is customary to capitalise
nouns and adjectives in proper names.

And (3) even so, this still
Post by Mark Brader
doesn't affect the title of their constitution.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Mark Brader
2018-05-28 06:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
# It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be
# the Republic of Ireland.
To which I say (1) Huh -- I did not know that. Thanks. (2) It's a pity
they capitalized the R -- that's wrong.
I'm puzzled by that statement.
Is it wrong to capitalise "commonwealth" in
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth of Australia
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
or "kingdom" in
Kingdom of Bhutan?
No, they are all proper names.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
They are all proper names. In English it is customary to capitalise
nouns and adjectives in proper names.
Yes. But not in "descriptions". That's all I have to say on the subject.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Professor, I think I have a counterexample."
***@vex.net | "That's all right; I have two proofs."
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-05-28 10:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
# It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be
# the Republic of Ireland.
To which I say (1) Huh -- I did not know that. Thanks. (2) It's a pity
they capitalized the R -- that's wrong.
I'm puzzled by that statement.
Is it wrong to capitalise "commonwealth" in
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth of Australia
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
or "kingdom" in
Kingdom of Bhutan?
No, they are all proper names.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
They are all proper names. In English it is customary to capitalise
nouns and adjectives in proper names.
Yes. But not in "descriptions". That's all I have to say on the subject.
OK. I understand your point.

As I understand it "Republic of Ireland" is an officially recognised
synonym for "Eire/Ireland". It is referred to as a "description"
because, although a name, it doesn't have equal status with the name
"Eire/Ireland".

Perhaps we could call it a "Description" rather than a "description".

In the laws of Eire/Ireland (Republic of Ireland) the place is referred
to as the "State".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Garrett Wollman
2018-05-27 01:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
That's the Constitution of Ireland (or the Bunreacht na hÉireann).
Despite the common usage in Britain, there is no country named "the
Republic of Ireland". See Article 4.
Description, not name. But you knew that, and were just trolling.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Mark Brader
2018-05-27 02:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland came into force in 1937.
That's the Constitution of Ireland (or the Bunreacht na hÉireann).
Despite the common usage in Britain, there is no country named "the
Republic of Ireland". See Article 4.
Description, not name.
In a description, the R -- and the C in Peter's message -- would be
lower case.
Post by Garrett Wollman
But you knew that, and were just trolling.
It's rare enough that you're wrong here, but there's no need to be rude
about it. I was making a correction, and I cited the definitive source
to prove I had the facts right.
--
Mark Brader "We can get ideas even from a clever man." ...
Toronto "Yes, I think you can. Even ideas you should
***@vex.net have had yourselves." -- John Dickson Carr

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Moylan
2018-05-27 11:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The Republic of Ireland currently has 35 amendments to its
Constitution. The recent referendum was for an amendment to repeal a
previous amendment (the 8th). If all goes as expected the 8th will be
repealed by the 36th Amendment.
The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland came into force in 1937.
Other countries have a head's start over Ireland in the number of
amendments.
Since 1901, Australia has had 44 referenda on constitutional amendments.
Only eight of these have passed.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
CDB
2018-05-27 11:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote: ...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
A few quotes from a live blog on the Irish Times newspaper
https://liveblog.irishtimes.com/c273bf43d6/Polls-close-in-referendum-on-Eighth-Amendment-/
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
22:00 Polls have now closed in the referendum on the Eighth
Amendment.
...
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
The Republic of Ireland currently has 35 amendments to its
Constitution. The recent referendum was for an amendment to repeal a
previous amendment (the 8th). If all goes as expected the 8th will be
repealed by the 36th Amendment.
The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland came into force in 1937.
Other countries have a head's start over Ireland in the number of
amendments.
Nicely observed. Does dropping the "s" count as sandhi?
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-05-27 15:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://liveblog.irishtimes.com/c273bf43d6/Polls-close-in-referendum-on-Eighth-Amendment-/
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
   22:00 Polls have now closed in the referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
...
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
Some countries have no amendments. E.g the UK, as it has no (written)
constitution, and Denmark, because the practice here is to make a new
version of the constitution instead (on a side-note, the present version
has been in effect since 1953, i.e. 65 years)

/Anders, Denmark.
Quinn C
2018-05-27 17:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://liveblog.irishtimes.com/c273bf43d6/Polls-close-in-referendum-on-Eighth-Amendment-/
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
   22:00 Polls have now closed in the referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
...
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
Some countries have no amendments. E.g the UK, as it has no (written)
constitution, and Denmark, because the practice here is to make a new
version of the constitution instead (on a side-note, the present version
has been in effect since 1953, i.e. 65 years)
The German constitution, like other laws, consists of numbered
sections. I guess it's to set them a bit apart that they are called
"Artikel" instead of "Paragraph" in the lesser laws. An amendment (of
which there were a few dozen since 1949) consists in changing, adding
or removing an "article".
--
- It's the title search for the Rachel property.
Guess who owns it?
- Tell me it's not that bastard Donald Trump.
-- Gilmore Girls, S02E08 (2001)
Garrett Wollman
2018-05-27 19:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
The German constitution, like other laws, consists of numbered
sections. I guess it's to set them a bit apart that they are called
"Artikel" instead of "Paragraph" in the lesser laws. An amendment (of
which there were a few dozen since 1949) consists in changing, adding
or removing an "article".
How much is this a consequence of the fact that it was never intended
to be "the German constitution", but just an interim "basic law" for
an interim West German state, pending reunification? (And then, of
course, reunification happened and they decided that it was working
just fine and there was no need to draw up a permanent constitution.)

There are two ways of thinking about constitutions: are they sacred,
immutable foundational documents, or are they just ordinary laws,
perhaps with a special amendment procedure? As I noted elsethread,
even US states differ on this -- in some states, the constitution is
immutable and amendments are just appended, in other states they hold
a periodic convention to amend the constitution or replace it
wholesale, in yet other states there is some legal authority (like the
attorney general or the chief justice) that applies amendments to the
text and publishes a new official version. All of these models are
seen in national constitutions, too, depending on the legal culture of
the place.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Quinn C
2018-05-28 04:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Quinn C
The German constitution, like other laws, consists of numbered
sections. I guess it's to set them a bit apart that they are called
"Artikel" instead of "Paragraph" in the lesser laws. An amendment (of
which there were a few dozen since 1949) consists in changing, adding
or removing an "article".
How much is this a consequence of the fact that it was never intended
to be "the German constitution", but just an interim "basic law" for
an interim West German state, pending reunification? (And then, of
course, reunification happened and they decided that it was working
just fine and there was no need to draw up a permanent constitution.)
Not in any significant way, I think. The procedure for changes was
actually more open in the Weimar constitution - it allowed for changes
via popular referendum, and for temporary suspension of constitutional
rules. The latter was formally how the Nazis suspended democracy.

The Basic Law of 1949 does not allow changes by referendum, and two
articles - one about the protection of human dignity, and one stating
the fundamentals of the political system (democracy, separation of
powers) - are declared unalterable.
Post by Garrett Wollman
There are two ways of thinking about constitutions: are they sacred,
immutable foundational documents, or are they just ordinary laws,
perhaps with a special amendment procedure? As I noted elsethread,
even US states differ on this -- in some states, the constitution is
immutable and amendments are just appended, in other states they hold
a periodic convention to amend the constitution or replace it
wholesale, in yet other states there is some legal authority (like the
attorney general or the chief justice) that applies amendments to the
text and publishes a new official version. All of these models are
seen in national constitutions, too, depending on the legal culture of
the place.
I've heard several times in my life that some country enacted a new,
eternal and immutable constitution. It made me chuckle each time,
because who is the power that's going to protect that constitution
against a government that chooses to scratch the words "eternal and
immutable" and then do what it pleases (and what the government did
that enacted this one, which was new after all)?

The German constitution explicitly states in the second immutable
article that it is the populace's right to stand up against anyone
trying to undermine the fundamentals of the political system, but
again, that's no more than an appeal, because there's no power put into
place to enforce that rule which is independent of the power most
likely to commit the infraction, viz. the government. That clause can
at best protect anti-government activists after a successful popular
uprising, but is moot in case of an unsuccessful one.
--
Failover worked - the system failed, then it was over.
(freely translated from a remark by Dietz Proepper
in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery)
Quinn C
2018-05-28 05:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Quinn C
The German constitution, like other laws, consists of numbered
sections. I guess it's to set them a bit apart that they are called
"Artikel" instead of "Paragraph" in the lesser laws. An amendment (of
which there were a few dozen since 1949) consists in changing, adding
or removing an "article".
How much is this a consequence of the fact that it was never intended
to be "the German constitution", but just an interim "basic law" for
an interim West German state, pending reunification? (And then, of
course, reunification happened and they decided that it was working
just fine and there was no need to draw up a permanent constitution.)
Not in any significant way, I think. The procedure for changes was
actually more open in the Weimar constitution - it allowed for changes
via popular referendum, and for temporary suspension of constitutional
rules. The latter was formally how the Nazis suspended democracy.
Also, changes, albeit few, had been made to the constitution of the
German Empire of 1871. I didn't know anything about that, and didn't
look into the procedures at this point.
--
Failover worked - the system failed, then it was over.
(freely translated from a remark by Dietz Proepper
in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery)
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-05-28 06:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://liveblog.irishtimes.com/c273bf43d6/Polls-close-in-referendum-on-Eighth-Amendment-/
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
   22:00 Polls have now closed in the referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
...
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
Some countries have no amendments. E.g the UK, as it has no (written)
constitution, and Denmark, because the practice here is to make a new
version of the constitution instead (on a side-note, the present version
has been in effect since 1953, i.e. 65 years)
I forgot: MkI was made in 1849, and the present version is the fifth
(but never referred to by number). Rather fewer than in the US.

/Anders, Denmark.
J. J. Lodder
2018-05-27 19:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://liveblog.irishtimes.com/c273bf43d6/Polls-close-in-referendum-on-Eigh
th-Amendment-/
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
22:00 Polls have now closed in the referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
...
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
Having a constitution that cannot be changed, only amended,
is a silly American idea. (that unfortunately has been taken over
in some other parts of the world)

Sane countries just change their constitution as needed,
in accordance with pre-defined procedure,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-28 03:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Jerry Friedman
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
Having a constitution that cannot be changed, only amended,
is a silly American idea. (that unfortunately has been taken over
in some other parts of the world)
Well, it _was_ the first time any such thing had been tried.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Sane countries just change their constitution as needed,
in accordance with pre-defined procedure,
If we had a Constitutional Convention today (as provided for in Article
V, which I quoted yesterday), many desirable things, like most of the
Bill of Rights, and most Checks & Balances, would no longer exist.
J. J. Lodder
2018-05-28 08:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Jerry Friedman
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
Having a constitution that cannot be changed, only amended,
is a silly American idea. (that unfortunately has been taken over
in some other parts of the world)
Well, it _was_ the first time any such thing had been tried.
Americans live in an American world.
For a less narrow-minded view you might have a look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#History_and_development
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Sane countries just change their constitution as needed,
in accordance with pre-defined procedure,
If we had a Constitutional Convention today (as provided for in Article
V, which I quoted yesterday), many desirable things, like most of the
Bill of Rights, and most Checks & Balances, would no longer exist.
Quite likely.
America in late 18th was a miracle of sanity
compared with America today,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-05-28 08:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Jerry Friedman
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
Having a constitution that cannot be changed, only amended,
is a silly American idea. (that unfortunately has been taken over
in some other parts of the world)
Well, it _was_ the first time any such thing had been tried.
Americans live in an American world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#History_and_development
One also thinks of "the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not".
Post by J. J. Lodder
"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Sane countries just change their constitution as needed,
in accordance with pre-defined procedure,
If we had a Constitutional Convention today (as provided for in Article
V, which I quoted yesterday), many desirable things, like most of the
Bill of Rights, and most Checks & Balances, would no longer exist.
Quite likely.
America in late 18th was a miracle of sanity
compared with America today,
Jan
--
athel
Peter Moylan
2018-05-29 03:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If we had a Constitutional Convention today (as provided for in
Article V, which I quoted yesterday), many desirable things, like
most of the Bill of Rights, and most Checks & Balances, would no
longer exist.
There probably wouldn't even be a right for citizens to own
military-grade weapons.
Quite likely. America in late 18th was a miracle of sanity compared
with America today,
There is much debate in Australia at present over issues related to
parliamentarians who have a right to dual citizenship. A number of
politicians have lost their seats because of it. There is general
agreement that there's a problem with the constitution, but less
agreement about how it can be fixed.

The basic problem, as I see it, is that the constitution was written too
far in the past. As I read it, the clear intent of the framers of the
constitution was that members of parliament must be British subjects.
The relevant sections had nothing to do with Australian citizenship,
because back in 1900 there was no such thing as Australian citizenship.
(In fact that wasn't defined until the year after I was born. I was born
a British subject, and was grandfathered in as an Australian citizen a
year later.)

That's a good argument for saying that any constitution that's more than
a hundred years old should be torn up.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2018-05-29 03:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If we had a Constitutional Convention today (as provided for in
Article V, which I quoted yesterday), many desirable things, like
most of the Bill of Rights, and most Checks & Balances, would no
longer exist.
There probably wouldn't even be a right for citizens to own
military-grade weapons.
No, that's the one alleged right that would be made explicit.

Remember, in 1989 Scalia simply crossed out the first clause of the
Second Amendment ("A well regulated Militia being necessary ...").
It was the first time in 200 years a case about an individual right
to bear arms had ever reached them.
Post by Peter Moylan
Quite likely. America in late 18th was a miracle of sanity compared
with America today,
There is much debate in Australia at present over issues related to
parliamentarians who have a right to dual citizenship. A number of
politicians have lost their seats because of it. There is general
agreement that there's a problem with the constitution, but less
agreement about how it can be fixed.
The basic problem, as I see it, is that the constitution was written too
far in the past. As I read it, the clear intent of the framers of the
constitution was that members of parliament must be British subjects.
The relevant sections had nothing to do with Australian citizenship,
because back in 1900 there was no such thing as Australian citizenship.
(In fact that wasn't defined until the year after I was born. I was born
a British subject, and was grandfathered in as an Australian citizen a
year later.)
The US Constitution doesn't define "citizenship" either, and all the
Americans, except the dispossessed Natives and maybe the slaves, had
also been British subjects. But we never had anything as silly as the
current Australian situation.
Post by Peter Moylan
That's a good argument for saying that any constitution that's more than
a hundred years old should be torn up.
'Tisn't.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-05-29 15:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If we had a Constitutional Convention today (as provided for in
Article V, which I quoted yesterday), many desirable things, like
most of the Bill of Rights, and most Checks & Balances, would no
longer exist.
There probably wouldn't even be a right for citizens to own
military-grade weapons.
Quite likely. America in late 18th was a miracle of sanity compared
with America today,
There is much debate in Australia at present over issues related to
parliamentarians who have a right to dual citizenship. A number of
politicians have lost their seats because of it. There is general
agreement that there's a problem with the constitution, but less
agreement about how it can be fixed.
I saw today (in the Guardian, I think) that renouncing British
citizenship costs more than £300 for each person. This won't be a
problem for me if I get around to applying for French nationality,
because France doesn't require you to renounce your previous
citizenship(s). However, in some countries of the European Union it
does matter. For example, the Netherlands doesn't recognize dual
nationality, so if you want to become Dutch you have to renounce what
you were before. Apparently they recently changed the law to allow
Dutch people to become British without giving up their Dutchness, but
it still doesn't work the other way round. Maybe Jan than explain why
what seems to be a grossly discriminatory law was made.
Post by Peter Moylan
The basic problem, as I see it, is that the constitution was written too
far in the past. As I read it, the clear intent of the framers of the
constitution was that members of parliament must be British subjects.
The relevant sections had nothing to do with Australian citizenship,
because back in 1900 there was no such thing as Australian citizenship.
(In fact that wasn't defined until the year after I was born. I was born
a British subject, and was grandfathered in as an Australian citizen a
year later.)
That's a good argument for saying that any constitution that's more than
a hundred years old should be torn up.
--
athel
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-05-29 15:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If we had a Constitutional Convention today (as provided for in
Article V, which I quoted yesterday), many desirable things, like
most of the Bill of Rights, and most Checks & Balances, would no
longer exist.
There probably wouldn't even be a right for citizens to own
military-grade weapons.
Quite likely. America in late 18th was a miracle of sanity compared
with America today,
There is much debate in Australia at present over issues related to
parliamentarians who have a right to dual citizenship. A number of
politicians have lost their seats because of it. There is general
agreement that there's a problem with the constitution, but less
agreement about how it can be fixed.
I saw today (in the Guardian, I think) that renouncing British
citizenship costs more than £300 for each person. This won't be a
problem for me if I get around to applying for French nationality,
because France doesn't require you to renounce your previous
citizenship(s). However, in some countries of the European Union it
does matter. For example, the Netherlands doesn't recognize dual
nationality, so if you want to become Dutch you have to renounce what
you were before. Apparently they recently changed the law to allow
Dutch people to become British without giving up their Dutchness, but
it still doesn't work the other way round. Maybe Jan than explain why
what seems to be a grossly discriminatory law was made.
Typical EU duplicity. No explanation needed.
Lanarcam
2018-05-29 16:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If we had a Constitutional Convention today (as provided for in
Article V, which I quoted yesterday), many desirable things, like
most of the Bill of Rights, and most Checks & Balances, would no
longer exist.
There probably wouldn't even be a right for citizens to own
military-grade weapons.
Quite likely. America in late 18th was a miracle of sanity compared
with America today,
There is much debate in Australia at present over issues related to
parliamentarians who have a right to dual citizenship. A number of
politicians have lost their seats because of it. There is general
agreement that there's a problem with the constitution, but less
agreement about how it can be fixed.
I saw today (in the Guardian, I think) that renouncing British
citizenship costs more than £300 for each person. This won't be a
problem for me if I get around to applying for French nationality,
because France doesn't require you to renounce your previous
citizenship(s). However, in some countries of the European Union it
does matter. For example, the Netherlands doesn't recognize dual
nationality, so if you want to become Dutch you have to renounce what
you were before. Apparently they recently changed the law to allow
Dutch people to become British without giving up their Dutchness, but
it still doesn't work the other way round. Maybe Jan than explain why
what seems to be a grossly discriminatory law was made.
Typical EU duplicity. No explanation needed.
France is in the EU too.
the Omrud
2018-05-29 16:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I saw today (in the Guardian, I think) that renouncing British
citizenship costs more than £300 for each person. This won't be a
problem for me if I get around to applying for French nationality,
because France doesn't require you to renounce your previous
citizenship(s). However, in some countries of the European Union it does
matter. For example, the Netherlands doesn't recognize dual nationality,
so if you want to become Dutch you have to renounce what you were
before. Apparently they recently changed the law to allow Dutch people
to become British without giving up their Dutchness, but it still
doesn't work the other way round. Maybe Jan than explain why what seems
to be a grossly discriminatory law was made.
I believe it's against EU rules to refuse dual nationality for people
who are citizens of other EU countries, so that can't be enforced
against Brits at the moment. This rule change may have been brought in
in to cover near-future idiocy.

I think Germany has a similar rule.
--
David
Quinn C
2018-05-29 17:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the Omrud
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I saw today (in the Guardian, I think) that renouncing British
citizenship costs more than £300 for each person. This won't be a
problem for me if I get around to applying for French nationality,
because France doesn't require you to renounce your previous
citizenship(s). However, in some countries of the European Union it does
matter. For example, the Netherlands doesn't recognize dual nationality,
so if you want to become Dutch you have to renounce what you were
before. Apparently they recently changed the law to allow Dutch people
to become British without giving up their Dutchness, but it still
doesn't work the other way round. Maybe Jan than explain why what seems
to be a grossly discriminatory law was made.
I believe it's against EU rules to refuse dual nationality for people
who are citizens of other EU countries, so that can't be enforced
against Brits at the moment. This rule change may have been brought in
in to cover near-future idiocy.
I think Germany has a similar rule.
I don't know all the details, but it seems the German law explicitly
makes an exception for EU member countries as long as it's reciprocal,
so it didn't apply to all countries, e.g. not the Netherlands or
Denmark (but it did for the UK, even before any talk of Brexit.)

I also saw now that someone from Greece won in court many years ago
when the application was refused because of missing reciprocity, so
that's an indication that that law might not be enforceable if
sufficiently challenged.
--
Democracy means government by the uneducated,
while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.
-- G. K. Chesterton
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-05-30 21:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by the Omrud
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I saw today (in the Guardian, I think) that renouncing British
citizenship costs more than £300 for each person. This won't be a
problem for me if I get around to applying for French nationality,
because France doesn't require you to renounce your previous
citizenship(s). However, in some countries of the European Union it does
matter. For example, the Netherlands doesn't recognize dual nationality,
so if you want to become Dutch you have to renounce what you were
before. Apparently they recently changed the law to allow Dutch people
to become British without giving up their Dutchness, but it still
doesn't work the other way round. Maybe Jan than explain why what seems
to be a grossly discriminatory law was made.
I believe it's against EU rules to refuse dual nationality for people
who are citizens of other EU countries,
I don't think so; I believe the Danish rules before they were
changed in 2014 allowed only very few dual citizenships; basically
only those that could not be renounced.
I can see that the rule change may have come about due to EU regulation,
but I don't recall that being part of the debate at the time (and,
frankly I think such a reference might have blocked the initiative).
Can you back up your belief with a reference of some sort?
Post by Quinn C
Post by the Omrud
so that can't be enforced
against Brits at the moment. This rule change may have been brought in
in to cover near-future idiocy.
I think Germany has a similar rule.
I don't know all the details, but it seems the German law explicitly
makes an exception for EU member countries as long as it's reciprocal,
so it didn't apply to all countries, e.g. not the Netherlands or
Denmark (but it did for the UK, even before any talk of Brexit.)
The situation in respect to Denmark has probably changed after we
in 2014 began permitting rather than disallowing dual citizenships
as the default.
Post by Quinn C
I also saw now that someone from Greece won in court many years ago
when the application was refused because of missing reciprocity, so
that's an indication that that law might not be enforceable if
sufficiently challenged.
/Anders, Denmark.
Quinn C
2018-05-31 16:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Quinn C
Post by the Omrud
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I saw today (in the Guardian, I think) that renouncing British
citizenship costs more than £300 for each person. This won't be a
problem for me if I get around to applying for French nationality,
because France doesn't require you to renounce your previous
citizenship(s). However, in some countries of the European Union it does
matter. For example, the Netherlands doesn't recognize dual nationality,
so if you want to become Dutch you have to renounce what you were
before. Apparently they recently changed the law to allow Dutch people
to become British without giving up their Dutchness, but it still
doesn't work the other way round. Maybe Jan than explain why what seems
to be a grossly discriminatory law was made.
I believe it's against EU rules to refuse dual nationality for people
who are citizens of other EU countries,
I don't think so; I believe the Danish rules before they were
changed in 2014 allowed only very few dual citizenships; basically
only those that could not be renounced.
I can see that the rule change may have come about due to EU regulation,
but I don't recall that being part of the debate at the time (and,
frankly I think such a reference might have blocked the initiative).
Can you back up your belief with a reference of some sort?
Post by Quinn C
Post by the Omrud
so that can't be enforced
against Brits at the moment. This rule change may have been brought in
in to cover near-future idiocy.
I think Germany has a similar rule.
I don't know all the details, but it seems the German law explicitly
makes an exception for EU member countries as long as it's reciprocal,
so it didn't apply to all countries, e.g. not the Netherlands or
Denmark (but it did for the UK, even before any talk of Brexit.)
The situation in respect to Denmark has probably changed after we
in 2014 began permitting rather than disallowing dual citizenships
as the default.
I expect so. The source I consulted unfortunately had no date.
--
'Ah yes, we got that keyboard from Small Gods when they threw out
their organ. Unfortunately for complex theological reasons they
would only give us the white keys, so we can only program in C'.
Colin Fine in sci.lang
Richard Tobin
2018-05-28 09:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Having a constitution that cannot be changed, only amended,
is a silly American idea.
What is the difference between changing and amending?

-- Richard
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-05-28 14:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
Having a constitution that cannot be changed, only amended,
is a silly American idea.
What is the difference between changing and amending?
-- Richard
Not a lot!

I understand Jan used "changing" to mean "replacing".

In practice that could be done by amendment.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Garrett Wollman
2018-05-28 17:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Richard Tobin
What is the difference between changing and amending?
Not a lot!
I understand Jan used "changing" to mean "replacing".
In practice that could be done by amendment.
SPEAKER: The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: An amendment offered by Mr. Smith, on behalf of the Committee
on Changes and Amendments: strike all after the enacting clause and
insert the following text.

CLERK: Section 1. [...]

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Rich Ulrich
2018-05-30 05:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Richard Tobin
What is the difference between changing and amending?
Not a lot!
I understand Jan used "changing" to mean "replacing".
In practice that could be done by amendment.
SPEAKER: The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: An amendment offered by Mr. Smith, on behalf of the Committee
on Changes and Amendments: strike all after the enacting clause and
insert the following text.
CLERK: Section 1. [...]
-GAWollman
I guess what I read about is how they have to do it -

The Congressional printing office produces the original
bill with its (maybe, hundreds of) original pages where
the text uses the "strike-out" version of the font, followed
by the new text.

I hope for the sake of trees that they allow Congressmen
to request a version with the original deleted. And that they
provide online versions instead of paper, for those who prefer.
--
Rich Ulrich
Quinn C
2018-05-28 17:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
Having a constitution that cannot be changed, only amended,
is a silly American idea.
What is the difference between changing and amending?
Amending is changing with built-in version control.
--
Everyone gets one personality tic that's then expanded into an
entire character, in the same way that a balloon with a smiley
face will look like a person if at some point you just stop
caring. -- David Berry, NatPost (on the cast of Criminal Minds)
J. J. Lodder
2018-05-28 08:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://liveblog.irishtimes.com/c273bf43d6/Polls-close-in-referendum-on-Eigh
th-Amendment-/
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
22:00 Polls have now closed in the referendum on the Eighth Amendment.
...
Didn't somebody just say that the U.S. was the only country where
constitutional amendments were so few they could be referred to by number?
The French do much better than that.
After historical disasters they set up a new Republic,
with a new convention.

Fifth Republic, so far,

Jan
Loading...