Discussion:
Bishop Curry on British TV again
(too old to reply)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-04 13:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Last night Bishop Michael Curry (sensation of the recent royal wedding)
was on British TV again.
He spoke gerretings and blessings to all invoved in Britains' Got
Talent.
It was a video message shown immediately after the host of the show had
spoken to Prince Harry and Meghan who were in the audience (in lookalike
form).

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-04 14:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Last night Bishop Michael Curry (sensation of the recent royal wedding)
was on British TV again.
He spoke gerretings and blessings to all invoved in Britains' Got
Talent.
It was a video message shown immediately after the host of the show had
spoken to Prince Harry and Meghan who were in the audience (in lookalike
form).
http://youtu.be/igqEd8vEVJU
One of many oddities, not least the result!
Tony Cooper
2018-06-04 15:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 14:36:31 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Last night Bishop Michael Curry (sensation of the recent royal wedding)
was on British TV again.
He spoke gerretings and blessings to all invoved in Britains' Got
Talent.
Is that a typo for "garrotings" or "greetings"? Blessed be he who
garrots a off-key singer?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-04 15:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 11:19:55 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 14:36:31 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Last night Bishop Michael Curry (sensation of the recent royal wedding)
was on British TV again.
He spoke gerretings and blessings to all invoved in Britains' Got
Talent.
Is that a typo for "garrotings" or "greetings"? Blessed be he who
garrots a off-key singer?
<smile>

"greetings" (not in a regional sense[1]) and "involved".

[1] "greet, v.2." Scottish and Northern English dialect meaning "To
weep, cry, lament, grieve" [OED].
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Paul Carmichael
2018-06-04 16:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 14:36:31 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Last night Bishop Michael Curry (sensation of the recent royal wedding)
was on British TV again.
He spoke gerretings and blessings to all invoved in Britains' Got
Talent.
Is that a typo for "garrotings" or "greetings"? Blessed be he who
garrots a off-key singer?
And "Britains'" for "Britain's" I presume.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
s***@gowanhill.com
2018-06-04 21:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Carmichael
And "Britains'" for "Britain's" I presume.
And "Talent" for "People Willing To Make A Fool Of Themselves," I presume.

Owain
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-04 21:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Paul Carmichael
And "Britains'" for "Britain's" I presume.
And "Talent" for "People Willing To Make A Fool Of Themselves," I presume.
Anyone putting their hopes in the hands of Simon Cowell or Piers Morgan
is ipso facto a fool.

America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-04 21:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Paul Carmichael
And "Britains'" for "Britain's" I presume.
And "Talent" for "People Willing To Make A Fool Of Themselves," I presume.
Anyone putting their hopes in the hands of Simon Cowell or Piers Morgan
is ipso facto a fool.
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
Why should there be? It's America's Got Talent not America's Got Judges.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-04 22:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Paul Carmichael
And "Britains'" for "Britain's" I presume.
And "Talent" for "People Willing To Make A Fool Of Themselves," I presume.
Anyone putting their hopes in the hands of Simon Cowell or Piers Morgan
is ipso facto a fool.
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
Why should there be? It's America's Got Talent not America's Got Judges.
"America's Got Judges" could be a preliminary show in which the public
choose four judges for America's Got Talent.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-05 03:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Paul Carmichael
And "Britains'" for "Britain's" I presume.
And "Talent" for "People Willing To Make A Fool Of Themselves," I presume.
Anyone putting their hopes in the hands of Simon Cowell or Piers Morgan
is ipso facto a fool.
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
Why should there be? It's America's Got Talent not America's Got Judges.
"America's Got Judges" could be a preliminary show in which the public
choose four judges for America's Got Talent.
Howard Stern proved to be surprisingly likeable -- and a good judge of talent.
Quinn C
2018-06-05 17:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Paul Carmichael
And "Britains'" for "Britain's" I presume.
And "Talent" for "People Willing To Make A Fool Of Themselves," I presume.
Anyone putting their hopes in the hands of Simon Cowell or Piers Morgan
is ipso facto a fool.
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
Why should there be? It's America's Got Talent not America's Got Judges.
"America's Got Judges" could be a preliminary show in which the public
choose four judges for America's Got Talent.
Or a more democratic way to fill Supreme Court seats.
--
If Helen Keller is alone in the forest and falls down, does she
make a sound?
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-05 17:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 14:44:36 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Paul Carmichael
And "Britains'" for "Britain's" I presume.
And "Talent" for "People Willing To Make A Fool Of Themselves," I presume.
Anyone putting their hopes in the hands of Simon Cowell or Piers Morgan
is ipso facto a fool.
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
Why should there be? It's America's Got Talent not America's Got Judges.
"America's Got Judges" could be a preliminary show in which the public
choose four judges for America's Got Talent.
Or a more democratic way to fill Supreme Court seats.
If Chuck Schumer becomes Majority Leader in the next Congress, I'll write
to him suggesting that Mitch McConnell be impeached for dereliction of duty
-- for refusing to Advise and Consent on hundreds of Obama's judicial
nominations -- and that every appointment by Trump to fill a vacancy that
resulted from that inaction be nullified, with all of Obama's nominations
being considered -- and any 5-4 decisions (or 3-2 on lower courts) with
one of Trump's in the majority be changed to 4-4 (so that the lower court's
opinion prevails); they could be reheard, with Garland in place of Gorsuch
(and so on at the lower levels).
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-05 03:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Paul Carmichael
And "Britains'" for "Britain's" I presume.
And "Talent" for "People Willing To Make A Fool Of Themselves," I presume.
Anyone putting their hopes in the hands of Simon Cowell or Piers Morgan
is ipso facto a fool.
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
Why should there be? It's America's Got Talent not America's Got Judges.
How many non-British judges have served on Britain's Got Talent (for how
many seasons)?

Not to mention that the last time I watched a season (2016), they were no
longer showing the wacky people with no talent at all, who basically did
carnival side-show acts -- and they didn't have many singers at all, who
seem to have been siphoned off by the various singing competitions; and
now there are at least two dance competitions, so maybe this season there
will be few dancers as well.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-05 09:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 20:06:18 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Paul Carmichael
And "Britains'" for "Britain's" I presume.
And "Talent" for "People Willing To Make A Fool Of Themselves," I presume.
Anyone putting their hopes in the hands of Simon Cowell or Piers Morgan
is ipso facto a fool.
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
Why should there be? It's America's Got Talent not America's Got Judges.
How many non-British judges have served on Britain's Got Talent (for how
many seasons)?
Not many.
In 2011 David Hasselhoff was a judge during most of the audition shows.
He was not available for the London auditions (he was performing in
pantomime) and the Irishman Louis Walsh stood/sat in for him.
In 2012 one of the judges, Amanda Holden, was unavailable for a time for
medical reasons and Carmen Electra was brought in as a temporary
replacement.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Not to mention that the last time I watched a season (2016), they were no
longer showing the wacky people with no talent at all, who basically did
carnival side-show acts -- and they didn't have many singers at all, who
seem to have been siphoned off by the various singing competitions; and
now there are at least two dance competitions, so maybe this season there
will be few dancers as well.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-05 13:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 20:06:18 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Paul Carmichael
And "Britains'" for "Britain's" I presume.
And "Talent" for "People Willing To Make A Fool Of Themselves," I presume.
Anyone putting their hopes in the hands of Simon Cowell or Piers Morgan
is ipso facto a fool.
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
Why should there be? It's America's Got Talent not America's Got Judges.
How many non-British judges have served on Britain's Got Talent (for how
many seasons)?
Not many.
In 2011 David Hasselhoff was a judge during most of the audition shows.
The Hoff was on early (the first?) seasons of AGT, which was a bit of a
surprise, because he was something of, or quite, a has-been -- he'd been
a running joke on SNL for years, at first because of his unaccountable
popularity in Germany (akin to Jerry Lewis's in France), and later for
his very public drunkenness. I think his place was taken by the Canadian
Howie Mandel, who's still on the panel.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
He was not available for the London auditions (he was performing in
pantomime) and the Irishman Louis Walsh stood/sat in for him.
In 2012 one of the judges, Amanda Holden, was unavailable for a time for
medical reasons and Carmen Electra was brought in as a temporary
replacement.
I've heard the name ... I'd guess Mexican?
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Not to mention that the last time I watched a season (2016), they were no
longer showing the wacky people with no talent at all, who basically did
carnival side-show acts -- and they didn't have many singers at all, who
seem to have been siphoned off by the various singing competitions; and
now there are at least two dance competitions, so maybe this season there
will be few dancers as well.
For one season they were based in Newark, NJ, at NJPAC -- New Jersey
Performing Arts Center -- and one act was simply a raptor who flew from
a perch high up, some blocks away, right through the lobby and theater
doors to the falconer's arm. Pretty spectacular, though not exactly a
talent.

By the last time I watched, they gave no hint of any locations where they
were filming, and they'd given up the charade of flying quadrifinalists
to "Lass" Vegas.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-05 17:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:08:24 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 20:06:18 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Paul Carmichael
And "Britains'" for "Britain's" I presume.
And "Talent" for "People Willing To Make A Fool Of Themselves," I presume.
Anyone putting their hopes in the hands of Simon Cowell or Piers Morgan
is ipso facto a fool.
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
Why should there be? It's America's Got Talent not America's Got Judges.
How many non-British judges have served on Britain's Got Talent (for how
many seasons)?
Not many.
In 2011 David Hasselhoff was a judge during most of the audition shows.
The Hoff was on early (the first?) seasons of AGT, which was a bit of a
surprise, because he was something of, or quite, a has-been -- he'd been
a running joke on SNL for years, at first because of his unaccountable
popularity in Germany (akin to Jerry Lewis's in France), and later for
his very public drunkenness. I think his place was taken by the Canadian
Howie Mandel, who's still on the panel.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
He was not available for the London auditions (he was performing in
pantomime) and the Irishman Louis Walsh stood/sat in for him.
In 2012 one of the judges, Amanda Holden, was unavailable for a time for
medical reasons and Carmen Electra was brought in as a temporary
replacement.
I've heard the name ... I'd guess Mexican?
Good guess, but she is USan. Carmen Electra is her stage name. She is
Tara Leigh Patrick, born in Sharonville, Ohio. She is of Dutch, English,
German, and Irish descent.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Not to mention that the last time I watched a season (2016), they were no
longer showing the wacky people with no talent at all, who basically did
carnival side-show acts -- and they didn't have many singers at all, who
seem to have been siphoned off by the various singing competitions; and
now there are at least two dance competitions, so maybe this season there
will be few dancers as well.
For one season they were based in Newark, NJ, at NJPAC -- New Jersey
Performing Arts Center -- and one act was simply a raptor who flew from
a perch high up, some blocks away, right through the lobby and theater
doors to the falconer's arm. Pretty spectacular, though not exactly a
talent.
By the last time I watched, they gave no hint of any locations where they
were filming, and they'd given up the charade of flying quadrifinalists
to "Lass" Vegas.
In the UK version the broadcast auditions are held in theatres in four
of five named cities.

There are preliminary auditions before that. This description is not
from an offical source and I'm not sure of the details. However. the
"producers' auditions" whittle down the thoussnds of hopefuls to the few
hundred who will perform on stage in front of the judges and an
audience:
https://closeronline.co.uk/entertainment/tv-movies/britain-got-talent-15-things-know-talent-show/

11. People who apply for the show have
to go through a really long audition process

Once you've sent off your application to attend the open auditions,
you're expected to turn up on the day an perform in front of a
producer. If they like you, you then have to perform to a more
senior producer, and then once more in front of a panel while they
film you. If you pass this stage you're then invited to audition in
front of a live audience with the celebrity judges.

The preliminary auditions are held in a couple of dozen places in the
UK.

Ob AUE: "producer" is used in this context to mean a member of the
production team, not necessarily someone with "Producer" in their job
title.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-05 18:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:08:24 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
[AGT]
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
By the last time I watched, they gave no hint of any locations where they
were filming, and they'd given up the charade of flying quadrifinalists
to "Lass" Vegas.
In the UK version the broadcast auditions are held in theatres in four
of five named cities.
That's now it was for the first several seasons, and they didn't duplicate
cities from one year to the next. The finals were always to be held in
Vegas. Then for a while they moved the finals to Radio City Music Hall
(Rockefeller Center, NYC). I think the Newark season was the last one
where they even said where they were broadcasting from. They did one show
of aquatic acts in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty with the Manhattan
skyline in the background. And then for a year or two it was clear that
they had cut together events from various venues (Heidi Klum and Mel B.'s
gowns varied from segment to segment; Simon Cowell's t-shirt may also have)
and there was no hint of regionalism.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
There are preliminary auditions before that. This description is not
from an offical source and I'm not sure of the details. However. the
"producers' auditions" whittle down the thoussnds of hopefuls to the few
hundred who will perform on stage in front of the judges and an
https://closeronline.co.uk/entertainment/tv-movies/britain-got-talent-15-things-know-talent-show/
11. People who apply for the show have
to go through a really long audition process
Once you've sent off your application to attend the open auditions,
you're expected to turn up on the day an perform in front of a
producer. If they like you, you then have to perform to a more
senior producer, and then once more in front of a panel while they
film you. If you pass this stage you're then invited to audition in
front of a live audience with the celebrity judges.
The preliminary auditions are held in a couple of dozen places in the
UK.
It must be something like that Over Here, because they show the instructions
for next year's competition at the end of the last several broadcasts of
each season.

But the non-live broadcasts can be deceptive. *American Ninja Warrior* is
shown in 2-hour programs once a week all summer: first the four (or six?)
City Prelims (locations aren't duplicated from one year to the next, though
eventually they'll return to some cities); then the four (or six?) City
Finals, for which the competitors qualified in the first round; and then
the national finals in Las Vegas. But if you check the Wikiparticle, you
discover that the City Finals are held in the week, or just a few days,
after the City Prelims (they don't have to disassemble and reassemble the
entire racecourse), and the whole season is finished before they start
broadcasting. (Which makes sense for the editors who make the two-hour
shows; if there are any surprise champions, they can be sure their runs
where shown and not abbreviated in the "while we were away" recaps after
each commercial break, which usually show three competitors, some of whom
complete the entire course.) Which also explains why all the venues are in
the south -- northern spring weather isn't conducive to high performance by
usually scantily clad musclepeople!
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Ob AUE: "producer" is used in this context to mean a member of the
production team, not necessarily someone with "Producer" in their job
title.
It used to be that BrE "producer" = AmE "director" (the person who tells
the actors what to do on the stage), where AmE "producer" was the money
people, one of whom was In Charge; but the term "producer" has become so
devalued -- pejorated by overuse -- that the person in charge is now called
the "show runner," which term confused me for a long time because it sounds
like what you'd call a gofer who's always running around doing errands.
Paul Carmichael
2018-06-05 08:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
I think that the judges on the Brit version of The Voice are American. There was also a
Welsh judge, but this year I don't know.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-05 09:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:33:42 +0200, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter T. Daniels
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
I think that the judges on the Brit version of The Voice are American. There was also a
Welsh judge, but this year I don't know.
*Some* of the judges/coaches on The Voice UK have been Americans:
will.i.am and Jennifer Hudson. will.i.am is a permanent fixture.
Jennifer Hudson has been in two series so far.

The British/Irish coaches have been: Jessie J, Sir Tom Jones, Danny
O'Donoghue, Kylie Minogue, Ricky Wilson, Rita Ora, Boy George, Paloma
Faith, Gavin Rossdale and Olly Murs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voice_UK#Coaches
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-05 11:23:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:33:42 +0200, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter T. Daniels
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
I think that the judges on the Brit version of The Voice are American. There was also a
Welsh judge, but this year I don't know.
will.i.am and Jennifer Hudson. will.i.am is a permanent fixture.
Jennifer Hudson has been in two series so far.
The British/Irish coaches have been: Jessie J, Sir Tom Jones, Danny
O'Donoghue, Kylie Minogue, Ricky Wilson, Rita Ora, Boy George, Paloma
Faith, Gavin Rossdale and Olly Murs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voice_UK#Coaches
We're claiming Kylie as British now, are we?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-05 13:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:33:42 +0200, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter T. Daniels
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
I think that the judges on the Brit version of The Voice are American. There was also a
Welsh judge, but this year I don't know.
will.i.am and Jennifer Hudson. will.i.am is a permanent fixture.
Jennifer Hudson has been in two series so far.
The British/Irish coaches have been: Jessie J, Sir Tom Jones, Danny
O'Donoghue, Kylie Minogue, Ricky Wilson, Rita Ora, Boy George, Paloma
Faith, Gavin Rossdale and Olly Murs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voice_UK#Coaches
We're claiming Kylie as British now, are we?
Yes! She has described Britain as her adopted home.
Also she is reported to have dual Australian and British citizenship.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Whiskers
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:33:42 +0200, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter T. Daniels
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
I think that the judges on the Brit version of The Voice are American. There was also a
Welsh judge, but this year I don't know.
will.i.am and Jennifer Hudson. will.i.am is a permanent fixture.
Jennifer Hudson has been in two series so far.
The British/Irish coaches have been: Jessie J, Sir Tom Jones, Danny
O'Donoghue, Kylie Minogue, Ricky Wilson, Rita Ora, Boy George, Paloma
Faith, Gavin Rossdale and Olly Murs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voice_UK#Coaches
We're claiming Kylie as British now, are we?
Yes! She has described Britain as her adopted home.
Also she is reported to have dual Australian and British citizenship.
She's been in 'Doctor Who', which is about as British as you can get.
--
^^^^^^^^^^
Whiskers
~~~~~~~~~~


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-05 15:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:33:42 +0200, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter T. Daniels
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
I think that the judges on the Brit version of The Voice are American. There was also a
Welsh judge, but this year I don't know.
will.i.am and Jennifer Hudson. will.i.am is a permanent fixture.
Jennifer Hudson has been in two series so far.
The British/Irish coaches have been: Jessie J, Sir Tom Jones, Danny
O'Donoghue, Kylie Minogue, Ricky Wilson, Rita Ora, Boy George, Paloma
Faith, Gavin Rossdale and Olly Murs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voice_UK#Coaches
We're claiming Kylie as British now, are we?
Yes! She has described Britain as her adopted home.
Also she is reported to have dual Australian and British citizenship.
She's been in 'Doctor Who', which is about as British as you can get.
--
I'm not sure that the Home Office accepts it as immediate qualification
for a British Passport, though!
Cheryl
2018-06-05 15:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:33:42 +0200, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter T. Daniels
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
I think that the judges on the Brit version of The Voice are American. There was also a
Welsh judge, but this year I don't know.
will.i.am and Jennifer Hudson. will.i.am is a permanent fixture.
Jennifer Hudson has been in two series so far.
The British/Irish coaches have been: Jessie J, Sir Tom Jones, Danny
O'Donoghue, Kylie Minogue, Ricky Wilson, Rita Ora, Boy George, Paloma
Faith, Gavin Rossdale and Olly Murs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voice_UK#Coaches
We're claiming Kylie as British now, are we?
Yes! She has described Britain as her adopted home.
Also she is reported to have dual Australian and British citizenship.
She's been in 'Doctor Who', which is about as British as you can get.
--
I'm not sure that the Home Office accepts it as immediate qualification
for a British Passport, though!
When famous people are connected with more than one country, their
actual legal status is less important than whether or not they have been
recently caught doing anything embarrassing or illegal - at least in the
views of their fellow-citizens (or not-fellow-citizens). Perhaps border
officials take another view.

While Ms Minogue is famous, I don't know enough about how she is
perceived in Australia or the UK to guess as to whether most citizens of
one or both countries count her as one of their own.
--
Cheryl
Peter Moylan
2018-06-05 16:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
We're claiming Kylie as British now, are we?
Yes! She has described Britain as her adopted home.
Also she is reported to have dual Australian and British citizenship.
She'd better not run for parliament in Australia, then.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Ross
2018-06-07 01:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
We're claiming Kylie as British now, are we?
Yes! She has described Britain as her adopted home.
Also she is reported to have dual Australian and British citizenship.
She'd better not run for parliament in Australia, then.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
This point of this comment may not be clear to many of our readers,
Peter. But I've been waiting for an opportunity to ask for your views
and insights on the matter. We (in NZ) have been hearing for a year
or more of political careers in Australia destroyed by the revelation
of (gasp!) dual citizenship. After all the talk, two questions still
baffle me: (i) Why does Aus. still have such a law, which everyone
seems to agree is stupid? (ii) How is it that facts which one would
think were a matter of public record are suddenly revealed after
a person has been in Parliament for several years? One would think
that political parties, when selecting candidates, would check to make
sure they met the minimum requirements in the event of their being
elected.
Arindam Banerjee
2018-06-07 05:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
We're claiming Kylie as British now, are we?
Yes! She has described Britain as her adopted home.
Also she is reported to have dual Australian and British citizenship.
She'd better not run for parliament in Australia, then.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
This point of this comment may not be clear to many of our readers,
Peter. But I've been waiting for an opportunity to ask for your views
and insights on the matter. We (in NZ) have been hearing for a year
or more of political careers in Australia destroyed by the revelation
of (gasp!) dual citizenship. After all the talk, two questions still
baffle me: (i) Why does Aus. still have such a law, which everyone
seems to agree is stupid? (ii) How is it that facts which one would
think were a matter of public record are suddenly revealed after
a person has been in Parliament for several years? One would think
that political parties, when selecting candidates, would check to make
sure they met the minimum requirements in the event of their being
elected.
What is stupid about nationalism? It avoid mixed loyalties.
Ross
2018-06-07 06:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
We're claiming Kylie as British now, are we?
Yes! She has described Britain as her adopted home.
Also she is reported to have dual Australian and British citizenship.
She'd better not run for parliament in Australia, then.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
This point of this comment may not be clear to many of our readers,
Peter. But I've been waiting for an opportunity to ask for your views
and insights on the matter. We (in NZ) have been hearing for a year
or more of political careers in Australia destroyed by the revelation
of (gasp!) dual citizenship. After all the talk, two questions still
baffle me: (i) Why does Aus. still have such a law, which everyone
seems to agree is stupid? (ii) How is it that facts which one would
think were a matter of public record are suddenly revealed after
a person has been in Parliament for several years? One would think
that political parties, when selecting candidates, would check to make
sure they met the minimum requirements in the event of their being
elected.
What is stupid about nationalism?
I didn't say nationalism was stupid.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
It avoid mixed loyalties.
The assumption that an Australian citizen who is (for one of several
reasons) also a citizen of some other country would be "loyal" to
that other country against Australia's interests is stupid. In none
of the cases I heard about was there even an allegation that the
individual in question was "disloyal". IIRC there was one Australian-born
individual whose Italian-born mother applied for Italian citizenship on
his behalf, because she thought it would be nice. If the law requires
such a person to be removed from office, the law is stupid.
Arindam Banerjee
2018-06-07 14:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
We're claiming Kylie as British now, are we?
Yes! She has described Britain as her adopted home.
Also she is reported to have dual Australian and British citizenship.
She'd better not run for parliament in Australia, then.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
This point of this comment may not be clear to many of our readers,
Peter. But I've been waiting for an opportunity to ask for your views
and insights on the matter. We (in NZ) have been hearing for a year
or more of political careers in Australia destroyed by the revelation
of (gasp!) dual citizenship. After all the talk, two questions still
baffle me: (i) Why does Aus. still have such a law, which everyone
seems to agree is stupid? (ii) How is it that facts which one would
think were a matter of public record are suddenly revealed after
a person has been in Parliament for several years? One would think
that political parties, when selecting candidates, would check to make
sure they met the minimum requirements in the event of their being
elected.
What is stupid about nationalism?
I didn't say nationalism was stupid.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
It avoid mixed loyalties.
The assumption that an Australian citizen who is (for one of several
reasons) also a citizen of some other country would be "loyal" to
that other country against Australia's interests is stupid. In none
of the cases I heard about was there even an allegation that the
individual in question was "disloyal". IIRC there was one Australian-born
individual whose Italian-born mother applied for Italian citizenship on
his behalf, because she thought it would be nice. If the law requires
such a person to be removed from office, the law is stupid.
The law as Mr Bumble put it is an ass that should learn from experience.

From your empirical evidence, what should the law learn? To put inductive logic over deductive logic, based upon populistic hand-waving? To put the whims of every screaming brat over solid principles?
Paul Carmichael
2018-06-07 18:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
What is stupid about nationalism? It avoid mixed loyalties.
Nationalism = tribalism. I hate flags.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Peter Moylan
2018-06-10 15:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
We're claiming Kylie as British now, are we?
Yes! She has described Britain as her adopted home. Also she is
reported to have dual Australian and British citizenship.
She'd better not run for parliament in Australia, then.
This point of this comment may not be clear to many of our readers,
Peter. But I've been waiting for an opportunity to ask for your
views and insights on the matter. We (in NZ) have been hearing for a
year or more of political careers in Australia destroyed by the
revelation of (gasp!) dual citizenship. After all the talk, two
questions still baffle me: (i) Why does Aus. still have such a law,
which everyone seems to agree is stupid? (ii) How is it that facts
which one would think were a matter of public record are suddenly
revealed after a person has been in Parliament for several years? One
would think that political parties, when selecting candidates, would
check to make sure they met the minimum requirements in the event of
their being elected.
As I read the Australian constitution, the intent is quite clear: every
candidate should be a British subject, which at the time meant a British
national. (So most of the members disqualified by court decision were
qualified by a literal reading of the constitution.) At the time the
constitution was written, there was no such thing as an Australian
citizen. (And, indeed, I was born British, because the Australian
citizenship act was not ratified until 1949. My parents, and all of my
grandparents, were British, even though all of them were born in
Australia.)

The intent was clearly to disqualify the Chinese, who were unpopular at
the time of federation.

As to why the facts weren't suddenly revealed until much too late: most
of those disqualified had no idea that they had the right to citizenship
of another country. That right derived from some poorly-understood
rules. For example, my parents could have claimed Irish citizenship
because they had Irish grandparents. They did not know that, and would
not have cared if they had known. US citizenship is even more
complicated, although as it turned out that did not affect our
politicians. The bottom line is that most people did not understand
those rules, and it would not have affected anything had our courts not
had the disease of over-literal interpretation of the rules.

There is now general agreement that the constitution should be changed;
but there is also general agreement that any constitutional amendment
will almost certainly fail.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Mark Brader
2018-06-10 19:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
As I read the Australian constitution, the intent is quite clear: every
candidate should be a British subject, which at the time meant a British
national.
No again. As I pointed out before, the wording is "a subject of the
Queen". It says nothing about "British". In 1900 they could have
been from anywhere in the Empire.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | A driver I know is getting uncomfortably close to
***@vex.net | earning the nickname "Crash". --Lee Ayrton
Katy Jennison
2018-06-10 20:24:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Moylan
As I read the Australian constitution, the intent is quite clear: every
candidate should be a British subject, which at the time meant a British
national.
No again. As I pointed out before, the wording is "a subject of the
Queen". It says nothing about "British". In 1900 they could have
been from anywhere in the Empire.
And up to 1949.
--
Katy Jennison
Peter Moylan
2018-06-11 02:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
every candidate should be a British subject, which at the time
meant a British national.
No again. As I pointed out before, the wording is "a subject of the
Queen". It says nothing about "British". In 1900 they could have
been from anywhere in the Empire.
Correction accepted. Now that I reflect on it, that was an era where
world maps used a lot of red paint.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Mark Brader
2018-06-11 06:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Mark Brader
every candidate should be a British subject, which at the time
meant a British national.
No again. As I pointed out before, the wording is "a subject of the
Queen". It says nothing about "British". In 1900 they could have
been from anywhere in the Empire.
Correction accepted.
Thanks.

But it leads to an interesting question now that the Queen is
understood to hold *separate* titles as Queen of Australia, Queen
of Canada, and so on for the other 14.

Suppose a Canadian citizen moves to Australia, is naturalized as
a citizen there, and officially renounces Canadian citizenship.
Clearly, after 5 years she would meet the requirements of sections
34 and 43 to serve in the Australian parliament.

But *does* she have to wait 5 years to satisfy section 34? After
all, she was already a natural-born subject of "the Queen" -- in
her position as the Queen of Canada.

Not something that's likely to be tested in practice, I guess!
Post by Peter Moylan
Now that I reflect on it, that was an era where world maps used a
lot of red paint.
Yep.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Common sense isn't any more common on Usenet
***@vex.net | than it is anywhere else." --Henry Spencer

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Moylan
2018-06-11 14:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Moylan
As I read the Australian constitution, the intent is quite
clear: every candidate should be a British subject, which at
the time meant a British national.
No again. As I pointed out before, the wording is "a subject of
the Queen". It says nothing about "British". In 1900 they
could have been from anywhere in the Empire.
Correction accepted.
Thanks.
But it leads to an interesting question now that the Queen is
understood to hold *separate* titles as Queen of Australia, Queen of
Canada, and so on for the other 14.
Suppose a Canadian citizen moves to Australia, is naturalized as a
citizen there, and officially renounces Canadian citizenship.
Clearly, after 5 years she would meet the requirements of sections 34
and 43 to serve in the Australian parliament.
But *does* she have to wait 5 years to satisfy section 34? After
all, she was already a natural-born subject of "the Queen" -- in her
position as the Queen of Canada.
Not something that's likely to be tested in practice, I guess!
I don't have time this week to re-read the Australian constitution with
that question in mind, but I'm now curious to re-check the precise wording.

(There's also the question as to whether the Queen of Canada and the
Queen of Australia are the same person. True, they occupy the same body,
but is that sufficient?)

One thing that's clear is that it never was a matter of allegiance to
the person of Queen Victoria. (Who expired, as it happens, only shortly
after getting her name into the constitution.) IIRC the wording says
things to the effect of "and her successors". Now that the concept of
"British subject" has been eliminated, not only here but in every
country that has a relationship with the British monarchy, what do we
mean by her successors? I'm inclined to believe that it's not tied to
the royal succession. When one becomes a citizen of Australia, one
effectively swears allegiance to the abstract entity called the
Commonwealth of Australia. The old notion of "L'état, c'est moi"
disappeared long ago.

Still, it will be interesting to check that wording again.

By the way, the scenario you suggest *has* been tested in practice. As I
recall it, the very first cases of politicians caught in the dual
citizenship trap were two who turned out to have entitlements to
citizenship in, respectively, Canada and New Zealand. In both cases they
seemed to be unaware that they could have claimed the other citizenship.
In the Canadian case, I think it was someone born to Australian parents
who just happened to be in Canada at the time of the birth.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-11 17:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:44:45 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Moylan
As I read the Australian constitution, the intent is quite
clear: every candidate should be a British subject, which at
the time meant a British national.
No again. As I pointed out before, the wording is "a subject of
the Queen". It says nothing about "British". In 1900 they
could have been from anywhere in the Empire.
Correction accepted.
Thanks.
But it leads to an interesting question now that the Queen is
understood to hold *separate* titles as Queen of Australia, Queen of
Canada, and so on for the other 14.
Suppose a Canadian citizen moves to Australia, is naturalized as a
citizen there, and officially renounces Canadian citizenship.
Clearly, after 5 years she would meet the requirements of sections 34
and 43 to serve in the Australian parliament.
But *does* she have to wait 5 years to satisfy section 34? After
all, she was already a natural-born subject of "the Queen" -- in her
position as the Queen of Canada.
Not something that's likely to be tested in practice, I guess!
I don't have time this week to re-read the Australian constitution with
that question in mind, but I'm now curious to re-check the precise wording.
(There's also the question as to whether the Queen of Canada and the
Queen of Australia are the same person. True, they occupy the same body,
but is that sufficient?)
They are the same human person, but they are two completely separate
"jobs"
Post by Peter Moylan
One thing that's clear is that it never was a matter of allegiance to
the person of Queen Victoria. (Who expired, as it happens, only shortly
after getting her name into the constitution.) IIRC the wording says
things to the effect of "and her successors". Now that the concept of
"British subject" has been eliminated, not only here but in every
country that has a relationship with the British monarchy, what do we
mean by her successors? I'm inclined to believe that it's not tied to
the royal succession. When one becomes a citizen of Australia, one
effectively swears allegiance to the abstract entity called the
Commonwealth of Australia. The old notion of "L'état, c'est moi"
disappeared long ago.
When thinking about allegiance it is worth considering that laws of the
Commonwealth of Australia are made in the name of the Queen of Australia
and receive her formal Assent. Assent turns a Bill into an Act. In
practice, of course, assent is given by the Queen's represenative in
Australia, the Governor General.

The Queen has more than one "job" in Australia. She is also Queen of
each State. Those are positions separate from her CofA position and from
each other. She assents to Acts of the State Parliaments. In practice
Assent is given by her representative in each State, the Governor,
acting on her behalf.

The Governor General and State Governors are formally appointed by the
Queen on the "advice" of the relevant Prime Minister or Premier. I.e.
she appoints but does not choose.
Post by Peter Moylan
Still, it will be interesting to check that wording again.
By the way, the scenario you suggest *has* been tested in practice. As I
recall it, the very first cases of politicians caught in the dual
citizenship trap were two who turned out to have entitlements to
citizenship in, respectively, Canada and New Zealand. In both cases they
seemed to be unaware that they could have claimed the other citizenship.
In the Canadian case, I think it was someone born to Australian parents
who just happened to be in Canada at the time of the birth.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Richard Yates
2018-06-11 17:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:03:40 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:44:45 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Moylan
As I read the Australian constitution, the intent is quite
clear: every candidate should be a British subject, which at
the time meant a British national.
No again. As I pointed out before, the wording is "a subject of
the Queen". It says nothing about "British". In 1900 they
could have been from anywhere in the Empire.
Correction accepted.
Thanks.
But it leads to an interesting question now that the Queen is
understood to hold *separate* titles as Queen of Australia, Queen of
Canada, and so on for the other 14.
Suppose a Canadian citizen moves to Australia, is naturalized as a
citizen there, and officially renounces Canadian citizenship.
Clearly, after 5 years she would meet the requirements of sections 34
and 43 to serve in the Australian parliament.
But *does* she have to wait 5 years to satisfy section 34? After
all, she was already a natural-born subject of "the Queen" -- in her
position as the Queen of Canada.
Not something that's likely to be tested in practice, I guess!
I don't have time this week to re-read the Australian constitution with
that question in mind, but I'm now curious to re-check the precise wording.
(There's also the question as to whether the Queen of Canada and the
Queen of Australia are the same person. True, they occupy the same body,
but is that sufficient?)
They are the same human person, but they are two completely separate
"jobs"
Post by Peter Moylan
One thing that's clear is that it never was a matter of allegiance to
the person of Queen Victoria. (Who expired, as it happens, only shortly
after getting her name into the constitution.) IIRC the wording says
things to the effect of "and her successors". Now that the concept of
"British subject" has been eliminated, not only here but in every
country that has a relationship with the British monarchy, what do we
mean by her successors? I'm inclined to believe that it's not tied to
the royal succession. When one becomes a citizen of Australia, one
effectively swears allegiance to the abstract entity called the
Commonwealth of Australia. The old notion of "L'état, c'est moi"
disappeared long ago.
When thinking about allegiance it is worth considering that laws of the
Commonwealth of Australia are made in the name of the Queen of Australia
and receive her formal Assent. Assent turns a Bill into an Act. In
practice, of course, assent is given by the Queen's represenative in
Australia, the Governor General.
The Queen has more than one "job" in Australia. She is also Queen of
each State. Those are positions separate from her CofA position and from
each other. She assents to Acts of the State Parliaments. In practice
Assent is given by her representative in each State, the Governor,
acting on her behalf.
Does the Queen ever have an inkling about what is assented to, or have
any influence whatsoever, however informal, on the process or results
of those Parliamentary Acts?

What about in England?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-11 18:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:16:01 -0700, Richard Yates
Post by Richard Yates
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:03:40 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:44:45 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Moylan
As I read the Australian constitution, the intent is quite
clear: every candidate should be a British subject, which at
the time meant a British national.
No again. As I pointed out before, the wording is "a subject of
the Queen". It says nothing about "British". In 1900 they
could have been from anywhere in the Empire.
Correction accepted.
Thanks.
But it leads to an interesting question now that the Queen is
understood to hold *separate* titles as Queen of Australia, Queen of
Canada, and so on for the other 14.
Suppose a Canadian citizen moves to Australia, is naturalized as a
citizen there, and officially renounces Canadian citizenship.
Clearly, after 5 years she would meet the requirements of sections 34
and 43 to serve in the Australian parliament.
But *does* she have to wait 5 years to satisfy section 34? After
all, she was already a natural-born subject of "the Queen" -- in her
position as the Queen of Canada.
Not something that's likely to be tested in practice, I guess!
I don't have time this week to re-read the Australian constitution with
that question in mind, but I'm now curious to re-check the precise wording.
(There's also the question as to whether the Queen of Canada and the
Queen of Australia are the same person. True, they occupy the same body,
but is that sufficient?)
They are the same human person, but they are two completely separate
"jobs"
Post by Peter Moylan
One thing that's clear is that it never was a matter of allegiance to
the person of Queen Victoria. (Who expired, as it happens, only shortly
after getting her name into the constitution.) IIRC the wording says
things to the effect of "and her successors". Now that the concept of
"British subject" has been eliminated, not only here but in every
country that has a relationship with the British monarchy, what do we
mean by her successors? I'm inclined to believe that it's not tied to
the royal succession. When one becomes a citizen of Australia, one
effectively swears allegiance to the abstract entity called the
Commonwealth of Australia. The old notion of "L'état, c'est moi"
disappeared long ago.
When thinking about allegiance it is worth considering that laws of the
Commonwealth of Australia are made in the name of the Queen of Australia
and receive her formal Assent. Assent turns a Bill into an Act. In
practice, of course, assent is given by the Queen's represenative in
Australia, the Governor General.
The Queen has more than one "job" in Australia. She is also Queen of
each State. Those are positions separate from her CofA position and from
each other. She assents to Acts of the State Parliaments. In practice
Assent is given by her representative in each State, the Governor,
acting on her behalf.
Does the Queen ever have an inkling about what is assented to, or have
any influence whatsoever, however informal, on the process or results
of those Parliamentary Acts?
What about in England?
In England, or more completely the UK, she has at least as much
opportunity to follow the progress of a Bill through Parliament as
anyone else via the normal published proceedings (online as well as
paper). Also she receives a daily report of parliamentary proceedings
prepared for her and once a week has a totally private meeting with the
Prime Minister. She is entitled to ask questions, offer advice and
suggestions. The Prime Minister is equally entitled to ignore what she
says. She has many more years experience than any PM so she may have
something useful to say. I recall one ex-PM saying that he found the
meetings with the Queen useful.

This is archived from the Royal website:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130307195445/https://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/TheQueensworkingday/Evening.aspx

The Queen's working day > Evening

The Queen's working day does not stop at the end of the afternoon.

Early evening may see a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Queen
has a weekly meeting alone with the Prime Minister, when they are
both in London (in addition to other meetings throughout the year).

This usually takes place on Wednesdays at 6.30 pm. No written record
is made of such meetings; neither The Queen nor the Prime Minister
talk about what is discussed between them, as communications between
The Queen and the Prime Minister always remains confidential.

At about 7.30 pm a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings,
written by one of the Government's Whips, arrives. The Queen always
reads this the same evening.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-11 19:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://web.archive.org/web/20130307195445/https://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/TheQueensworkingday/Evening.aspx
The Queen's working day > Evening
The Queen's working day does not stop at the end of the afternoon.
Early evening may see a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Queen
has a weekly meeting alone with the Prime Minister, when they are
both in London (in addition to other meetings throughout the year).
This usually takes place on Wednesdays at 6.30 pm. No written record
is made of such meetings; neither The Queen nor the Prime Minister
talk about what is discussed between them, as communications between
The Queen and the Prime Minister always remains confidential.
At about 7.30 pm a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings,
written by one of the Government's Whips, arrives. The Queen always
reads this the same evening.
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-11 20:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:42:13 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://web.archive.org/web/20130307195445/https://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/TheQueensworkingday/Evening.aspx
The Queen's working day > Evening
The Queen's working day does not stop at the end of the afternoon.
Early evening may see a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Queen
has a weekly meeting alone with the Prime Minister, when they are
both in London (in addition to other meetings throughout the year).
This usually takes place on Wednesdays at 6.30 pm. No written record
is made of such meetings; neither The Queen nor the Prime Minister
talk about what is discussed between them, as communications between
The Queen and the Prime Minister always remains confidential.
At about 7.30 pm a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings,
written by one of the Government's Whips, arrives. The Queen always
reads this the same evening.
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I don't know, but I'd expect it to be more than a single page.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Sam Plusnet
2018-06-11 23:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://web.archive.org/web/20130307195445/https://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/TheQueensworkingday/Evening.aspx
The Queen's working day > Evening
The Queen's working day does not stop at the end of the afternoon.
Early evening may see a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Queen
has a weekly meeting alone with the Prime Minister, when they are
both in London (in addition to other meetings throughout the year).
This usually takes place on Wednesdays at 6.30 pm. No written record
is made of such meetings; neither The Queen nor the Prime Minister
talk about what is discussed between them, as communications between
The Queen and the Prime Minister always remains confidential.
At about 7.30 pm a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings,
written by one of the Government's Whips, arrives. The Queen always
reads this the same evening.
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
--
Sam Plusnet
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-11 23:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-12 08:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-12 11:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Well quite. I can't imagine that the Smithsonian will be queuing up in
a century or so to display "a pristine copy of the document that
President Trump tore up and threw into the face of the Canadian Trade
Minister precipitating the 3rd World War"!
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-12 13:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Well quite. I can't imagine that the Smithsonian will be queuing up in
a century or so to display "a pristine copy of the document that
President Trump tore up and threw into the face of the Canadian Trade
Minister precipitating the 3rd World War"!
But why would they "desecrate" these priceless torn-ups with tape? I'd
think the right way to archive them would be to put the fragments in a
Ziploc bag. The ones with display value could eventually be mounted
artistically by museum specialists.
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2018-06-12 13:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 07:15:01 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Well quite. I can't imagine that the Smithsonian will be queuing up in
a century or so to display "a pristine copy of the document that
President Trump tore up and threw into the face of the Canadian Trade
Minister precipitating the 3rd World War"!
But why would they "desecrate" these priceless torn-ups with tape? I'd
think the right way to archive them would be to put the fragments in a
Ziploc bag. The ones with display value could eventually be mounted
artistically by museum specialists.
I've not bothered to research any connection, but the papers go to the
National Archives and not the Smithsonian. To the best of my
knowledge, they are not on public display.

I do allow that Jerry's comment is a sarcastic observation on what
would be a fitting representation of Trump's contribution to the
history of the American Presidency.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-12 14:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 07:15:01 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Well quite. I can't imagine that the Smithsonian will be queuing up in
a century or so to display "a pristine copy of the document that
President Trump tore up and threw into the face of the Canadian Trade
Minister precipitating the 3rd World War"!
But why would they "desecrate" these priceless torn-ups with tape? I'd
think the right way to archive them would be to put the fragments in a
Ziploc bag. The ones with display value could eventually be mounted
artistically by museum specialists.
I've not bothered to research any connection, but the papers go to the
National Archives and not the Smithsonian. To the best of my
knowledge, they are not on public display.
I do allow that Jerry's comment is a sarcastic observation on what
would be a fitting representation of Trump's contribution to the
history of the American Presidency.
--
Undoubtedly true but as I was envisaging a situation one hundred
years in the future and after another world war I think I can be
allowed a little leeway on possible scenarios!
David Kleinecke
2018-06-12 17:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 07:15:01 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily
Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Well quite. I can't imagine that the Smithsonian will be queuing up in
a century or so to display "a pristine copy of the document that
President Trump tore up and threw into the face of the Canadian Trade
Minister precipitating the 3rd World War"!
But why would they "desecrate" these priceless torn-ups with tape? I'd
think the right way to archive them would be to put the fragments in a
Ziploc bag. The ones with display value could eventually be mounted
artistically by museum specialists.
I've not bothered to research any connection, but the papers go to the
National Archives and not the Smithsonian. To the best of my
knowledge, they are not on public display.
I do allow that Jerry's comment is a sarcastic observation on what
would be a fitting representation of Trump's contribution to the
history of the American Presidency.
--
Undoubtedly true but as I was envisaging a situation one hundred
years in the future and after another world war I think I can be
allowed a little leeway on possible scenarios!
One hundred years in the future all our paper archives
will have been digitized and the originals burned.
J. J. Lodder
2018-06-12 17:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 07:15:01 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily
Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT
allegedly demanded > and ignores? > I was entertained by the news
that the task of one recent White House escapee was to repair,
with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump had torn up, so
that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the
document didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical
object because it was torn up by him.
Well quite. I can't imagine that the Smithsonian will be queuing up
in a century or so to display "a pristine copy of the document that
President Trump tore up and threw into the face of the Canadian
Trade Minister precipitating the 3rd World War"!
But why would they "desecrate" these priceless torn-ups with tape?
I'd think the right way to archive them would be to put the fragments
in a Ziploc bag. The ones with display value could eventually be
mounted artistically by museum specialists.
I've not bothered to research any connection, but the papers go to the
National Archives and not the Smithsonian. To the best of my
knowledge, they are not on public display.
I do allow that Jerry's comment is a sarcastic observation on what
would be a fitting representation of Trump's contribution to the
history of the American Presidency.
--
Undoubtedly true but as I was envisaging a situation one hundred
years in the future and after another world war I think I can be
allowed a little leeway on possible scenarios!
One hundred years in the future all our paper archives
will have been digitized and the originals burned.
As likely as all your rifles having been melted down for scrap iron,

Jan
Sam Plusnet
2018-06-12 20:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
One hundred years in the future all our paper archives
will have been digitized and the originals burned.
The 'Paperless Office' has been delayed, but I'm sure it will be along
quite soon.
--
Sam Plusnet
s***@gowanhill.com
2018-06-12 20:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
The 'Paperless Office' has been delayed, but I'm sure it will be along
quite soon.
Didn't you get the round robin memo through the internal mail?

Owain
Janet
2018-06-12 23:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Sam Plusnet
The 'Paperless Office' has been delayed, but I'm sure it will be along
quite soon.
Didn't you get the round robin memo through the internal mail?
Or by pigeon post.

Janet
bill van
2018-06-13 03:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by s***@gowanhill.com
Post by Sam Plusnet
The 'Paperless Office' has been delayed, but I'm sure it will be along
quite soon.
Didn't you get the round robin memo through the internal mail?
Or by pigeon post.
Or you could hear it on the grapevine.

bill
Peter Moylan
2018-06-13 01:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
One hundred years in the future all our paper archives will have
been digitized and the originals burned.
The 'Paperless Office' has been delayed, but I'm sure it will be
along quite soon.
I've heard that there are some businesses whose records are stored in an
MS-Word format that Microsoft no longer supports.

Me, I'm safe. My floppy disks are all safely stored in a box in a cupboard.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-06-13 07:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
One hundred years in the future all our paper archives will have
been digitized and the originals burned.
The 'Paperless Office' has been delayed, but I'm sure it will be
along quite soon.
I've heard that there are some businesses whose records are stored in an
MS-Word format that Microsoft no longer supports.
They should use Pages, which can open at least some Word files that
Word can't open.
Post by Peter Moylan
Me, I'm safe. My floppy disks are all safely stored in a box in a cupboard.
Mine are scattered around in various places, such as the top of my
daughter's piano. Safe as houses.
--
athel
Kerr-Mudd,John
2018-06-13 08:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 07:02:59 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
One hundred years in the future all our paper archives will have
been digitized and the originals burned.
The 'Paperless Office' has been delayed, but I'm sure it will be
along quite soon.
I've heard that there are some businesses whose records are stored in
an MS-Word format that Microsoft no longer supports.
They should use Pages, which can open at least some Word files that
Word can't open.
Post by Peter Moylan
Me, I'm safe. My floppy disks are all safely stored in a box in a cupboard.
Mine are scattered around in various places, such as the top of my
daughter's piano. Safe as houses.
I went through my collection of FD from the 1980's in 2005. About a third
were fully readable, maybe half I could get some bits from. 1.4Ms were
mostly failures.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Moylan
2018-06-13 01:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
One hundred years in the future all our paper archives
will have been digitized
and stored on media with a one-year warranty
Post by David Kleinecke
and the originals burned.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-12 19:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 07:15:01 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Well quite. I can't imagine that the Smithsonian will be queuing up in
a century or so to display "a pristine copy of the document that
President Trump tore up and threw into the face of the Canadian Trade
Minister precipitating the 3rd World War"!
But why would they "desecrate" these priceless torn-ups with tape? I'd
think the right way to archive them would be to put the fragments in a
Ziploc bag. The ones with display value could eventually be mounted
artistically by museum specialists.
I've not bothered to research any connection, but the papers go to the
National Archives and not the Smithsonian. To the best of my
knowledge, they are not on public display.
I did a little research. The National Archives sometimes lends
documents to the Smithsonian for public display.

https://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/first-written-treaty-between-us-and-native-american-nation-be-shown-american-indian-museum
Post by Tony Cooper
I do allow that Jerry's comment is a sarcastic observation on what
would be a fitting representation of Trump's contribution to the
history of the American Presidency.
It was more Madrigal's comment.
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2018-06-12 17:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly
demanded and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Well quite. I can't imagine that the Smithsonian will be queuing up in
a century or so to display "a pristine copy of the document that
President Trump tore up and threw into the face of the Canadian Trade
Minister precipitating the 3rd World War"!
But why would they "desecrate" these priceless torn-ups with tape? I'd
think the right way to archive them would be to put the fragments in a
Ziploc bag. The ones with display value could eventually be mounted
artistically by museum specialists.
Tape... American backwardness again.
Do it the German way instead.
They scanned all the documents that the STASI had shredded,
and had a computer piece it all together.
(cellars full of garbage bags with the stuff)

If needed it is no problem to reprint the fitted pages,

Jan
Richard Tobin
2018-06-12 18:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Jerry Friedman
But why would they "desecrate" these priceless torn-ups with tape? I'd
think the right way to archive them would be to put the fragments in a
Ziploc bag. The ones with display value could eventually be mounted
artistically by museum specialists.
Tape... American backwardness again.
Do it the German way instead.
They scanned all the documents that the STASI had shredded,
and had a computer piece it all together.
(cellars full of garbage bags with the stuff)
They're just following the Iranian example.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Documents_seized_from_the_U.S._Embassy_in_Tehran

-- Richard
J. J. Lodder
2018-06-13 08:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Jerry Friedman
But why would they "desecrate" these priceless torn-ups with tape? I'd
think the right way to archive them would be to put the fragments in a
Ziploc bag. The ones with display value could eventually be mounted
artistically by museum specialists.
Tape... American backwardness again.
Do it the German way instead.
They scanned all the documents that the STASI had shredded,
and had a computer piece it all together.
(cellars full of garbage bags with the stuff)
They're just following the Iranian example.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Documents_seized_from_the_U.S._Embassy_in_Tehra
n

It is a fairly obvious thing to do,
and fairly easy when the shreds are still in the shredder,
or in a few bags.
The German example 1s on a far more massive scale,
15 000 bags, for 33 million pages. (fide wikip)

Jan
Tony Cooper
2018-06-12 12:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:21:04 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Actually, they are taped back together because it is a legal
requirement under the Presidential Records Act that all memos,
letters, emails, and papers that the president touches be retained and
sent to the National Archives. The law doesn't say that the items can
be retained in shredded form, so the taping is done.

The law wouldn't allow a re-printing of the document by the sender.
The re-printing might not be an accurate version of the original.

The law does not make exceptions. If a Cabinet member passes Trump a
note that says "Your fly's unzipped!", and the president handles the
note, it must be preserved.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J. J. Lodder
2018-06-12 17:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:21:04 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Actually, they are taped back together because it is a legal
requirement under the Presidential Records Act that all memos,
letters, emails, and papers that the president touches be retained and
sent to the National Archives.
How do you touch an email?
Post by Tony Cooper
The law doesn't say that the items can
be retained in shredded form, so the taping is done.
The taping together is far more destructive in the long term
than just archiving the pieces.
Post by Tony Cooper
The law wouldn't allow a re-printing of the document by the sender.
The re-printing might not be an accurate version of the original.
The law does not make exceptions. If a Cabinet member passes Trump a
note that says "Your fly's unzipped!", and the president handles the
note, it must be preserved.
The law no doubt says nothing about taping the pieces together.
Trump never handled the tape,

Jan
Tony Cooper
2018-06-12 18:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:21:04 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Actually, they are taped back together because it is a legal
requirement under the Presidential Records Act that all memos,
letters, emails, and papers that the president touches be retained and
sent to the National Archives.
How do you touch an email?
The same way you touch a postal mail. "Email" is just the method of
delivery. Emails can be printed and the result is still referred to
as an email. Email to the president would be printed and given to him
in a folder.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J. J. Lodder
2018-06-13 08:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:21:04 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly
demanded and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Actually, they are taped back together because it is a legal
requirement under the Presidential Records Act that all memos,
letters, emails, and papers that the president touches be retained and
sent to the National Archives.
How do you touch an email?
The same way you touch a postal mail. "Email" is just the method of
delivery. Emails can be printed and the result is still referred to
as an email. Email to the president would be printed and given to him
in a folder.
Are you sure? Trump has access to a screen, for tweets,
so he may as well look at his email on screen,
while the unseen untouched paper version
goes into the archives,.

Jan
Tony Cooper
2018-06-13 13:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:21:04 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily
Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly
demanded and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Actually, they are taped back together because it is a legal
requirement under the Presidential Records Act that all memos,
letters, emails, and papers that the president touches be retained and
sent to the National Archives.
How do you touch an email?
The same way you touch a postal mail. "Email" is just the method of
delivery. Emails can be printed and the result is still referred to
as an email. Email to the president would be printed and given to him
in a folder.
Are you sure? Trump has access to a screen, for tweets,
so he may as well look at his email on screen,
while the unseen untouched paper version
goes into the archives,.
"Touched", in this context, may not be a physical contact. If an aide
brings Trump a folder of printed emails and reads them to him, that
would qualify the emails as being "touched". If Trump waves away the
aide because Trump is busy watching Fox News, the unread emails are
still considered to be "touched". The word can be used to mean
"material eligible for archiving" because it *should* have been
touched by the president.

They aren't looking for fingerprints.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-12 19:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:21:04 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Actually, they are taped back together because it is a legal
requirement under the Presidential Records Act that all memos,
letters, emails, and papers that the president touches be retained and
sent to the National Archives. The law doesn't say that the items can
be retained in shredded form, so the taping is done.
It also doesn't say that they can be retained in taped form.
Post by Tony Cooper
The law wouldn't allow a re-printing of the document by the sender.
The re-printing might not be an accurate version of the original.
Since Peter Duncanson pointed out that the actual document has value,
and you and Madrigal agreed on different grounds (the law, in your
case), I agree that a reprinted version by itself wouldn't work. But I
still think the best way to archive a torn document would be as is, with
an authenticated copy for the convenience of future historians attached
if possible.
Post by Tony Cooper
The law does not make exceptions. If a Cabinet member passes Trump a
note that says "Your fly's unzipped!", and the president handles the
note, it must be preserved.
Actually, the law specifically excepts personal records.

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

I suppose there might be some debate about whether a note on the
Presidential fly is in the category of materials "do not relate to or
have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory,
or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." It might
depend on whether he was about to lay a wreath or just have a photo op.

On the subject of exceptions, I wonder what the archives would do if the
president got petulant enough to burn something.
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2018-06-12 20:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:17:39 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:21:04 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Actually, they are taped back together because it is a legal
requirement under the Presidential Records Act that all memos,
letters, emails, and papers that the president touches be retained and
sent to the National Archives. The law doesn't say that the items can
be retained in shredded form, so the taping is done.
It also doesn't say that they can be retained in taped form.
Post by Tony Cooper
The law wouldn't allow a re-printing of the document by the sender.
The re-printing might not be an accurate version of the original.
Since Peter Duncanson pointed out that the actual document has value,
and you and Madrigal agreed on different grounds (the law, in your
case), I agree that a reprinted version by itself wouldn't work. But I
still think the best way to archive a torn document would be as is, with
an authenticated copy for the convenience of future historians attached
if possible.
How do you authenticate a reproductions of a torn-up document while
leaving the document itself "as is"? We have all seen the errors that
can result when using OCR, so piecing the document back together and
scanning it might not result in an authentic reproduction.

Given that conspiracy theories spring up like weeds in this country,
you really don't want any doubt about what the original said.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
The law does not make exceptions. If a Cabinet member passes Trump a
note that says "Your fly's unzipped!", and the president handles the
note, it must be preserved.
Actually, the law specifically excepts personal records.
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html
I suppose there might be some debate about whether a note on the
Presidential fly is in the category of materials "do not relate to or
have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory,
or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." It might
depend on whether he was about to lay a wreath or just have a photo op.
Those charged with the taping process don't want to be the ones making
the decision whether or not the item should be archived.
Post by Jerry Friedman
On the subject of exceptions, I wonder what the archives would do if the
president got petulant enough to burn something.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-13 03:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:17:39 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:21:04 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Actually, they are taped back together because it is a legal
requirement under the Presidential Records Act that all memos,
letters, emails, and papers that the president touches be retained and
sent to the National Archives. The law doesn't say that the items can
be retained in shredded form, so the taping is done.
It also doesn't say that they can be retained in taped form.
Post by Tony Cooper
The law wouldn't allow a re-printing of the document by the sender.
The re-printing might not be an accurate version of the original.
Since Peter Duncanson pointed out that the actual document has value,
and you and Madrigal agreed on different grounds (the law, in your
case), I agree that a reprinted version by itself wouldn't work. But I
still think the best way to archive a torn document would be as is, with
an authenticated copy for the convenience of future historians attached
if possible.
How do you authenticate a reproductions of a torn-up document while
leaving the document itself "as is"? We have all seen the errors that
can result when using OCR, so piecing the document back together and
scanning it might not result in an authentic reproduction.
Have a person do it instead of OCR.
Post by Tony Cooper
Given that conspiracy theories spring up like weeds in this country,
you really don't want any doubt about what the original said.
That's why you'd preserve the original, with a copy attached if possible.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
The law does not make exceptions. If a Cabinet member passes Trump a
note that says "Your fly's unzipped!", and the president handles the
note, it must be preserved.
Actually, the law specifically excepts personal records.
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html
I suppose there might be some debate about whether a note on the
Presidential fly is in the category of materials "do not relate to or
have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory,
or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." It might
depend on whether he was about to lay a wreath or just have a photo op.
Those charged with the taping process don't want to be the ones making
the decision whether or not the item should be archived.
...

No doubt. When you said "must be preserved", I thought you were talking
about the preservation in the archives, not what the White House
employee does.
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2018-06-13 12:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 21:35:25 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:17:39 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:21:04 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Actually, they are taped back together because it is a legal
requirement under the Presidential Records Act that all memos,
letters, emails, and papers that the president touches be retained and
sent to the National Archives. The law doesn't say that the items can
be retained in shredded form, so the taping is done.
It also doesn't say that they can be retained in taped form.
Post by Tony Cooper
The law wouldn't allow a re-printing of the document by the sender.
The re-printing might not be an accurate version of the original.
Since Peter Duncanson pointed out that the actual document has value,
and you and Madrigal agreed on different grounds (the law, in your
case), I agree that a reprinted version by itself wouldn't work. But I
still think the best way to archive a torn document would be as is, with
an authenticated copy for the convenience of future historians attached
if possible.
How do you authenticate a reproductions of a torn-up document while
leaving the document itself "as is"? We have all seen the errors that
can result when using OCR, so piecing the document back together and
scanning it might not result in an authentic reproduction.
Have a person do it instead of OCR.
See my next sentence.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
Given that conspiracy theories spring up like weeds in this country,
you really don't want any doubt about what the original said.
That's why you'd preserve the original, with a copy attached if possible.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
The law does not make exceptions. If a Cabinet member passes Trump a
note that says "Your fly's unzipped!", and the president handles the
note, it must be preserved.
Actually, the law specifically excepts personal records.
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html
I suppose there might be some debate about whether a note on the
Presidential fly is in the category of materials "do not relate to or
have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory,
or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." It might
depend on whether he was about to lay a wreath or just have a photo op.
Those charged with the taping process don't want to be the ones making
the decision whether or not the item should be archived.
...
No doubt. When you said "must be preserved", I thought you were talking
about the preservation in the archives, not what the White House
employee does.
Wouldn't they be one and the same? If something is taped back
together and sent to be archived, it would be archived for the same
reason that the taper tapes: the archivers don't want to be the ones
making the decision whether or not the item should be archived.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Rich Ulrich
2018-06-13 15:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 08:13:10 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 21:35:25 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:17:39 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:21:04 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Actually, they are taped back together because it is a legal
requirement under the Presidential Records Act that all memos,
letters, emails, and papers that the president touches be retained and
sent to the National Archives. The law doesn't say that the items can
be retained in shredded form, so the taping is done.
It also doesn't say that they can be retained in taped form.
Post by Tony Cooper
The law wouldn't allow a re-printing of the document by the sender.
The re-printing might not be an accurate version of the original.
Since Peter Duncanson pointed out that the actual document has value,
and you and Madrigal agreed on different grounds (the law, in your
case), I agree that a reprinted version by itself wouldn't work. But I
still think the best way to archive a torn document would be as is, with
an authenticated copy for the convenience of future historians attached
if possible.
How do you authenticate a reproductions of a torn-up document while
leaving the document itself "as is"? We have all seen the errors that
can result when using OCR, so piecing the document back together and
scanning it might not result in an authentic reproduction.
Have a person do it instead of OCR.
See my next sentence.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
Given that conspiracy theories spring up like weeds in this country,
you really don't want any doubt about what the original said.
That's why you'd preserve the original, with a copy attached if possible.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
The law does not make exceptions. If a Cabinet member passes Trump a
note that says "Your fly's unzipped!", and the president handles the
note, it must be preserved.
Actually, the law specifically excepts personal records.
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html
I suppose there might be some debate about whether a note on the
Presidential fly is in the category of materials "do not relate to or
have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory,
or other official or ceremonial duties of the President." It might
depend on whether he was about to lay a wreath or just have a photo op.
Those charged with the taping process don't want to be the ones making
the decision whether or not the item should be archived.
...
No doubt. When you said "must be preserved", I thought you were talking
about the preservation in the archives, not what the White House
employee does.
Wouldn't they be one and the same? If something is taped back
together and sent to be archived, it would be archived for the same
reason that the taper tapes: the archivers don't want to be the ones
making the decision whether or not the item should be archived.
I believe that, last night, the person I saw being interviewed
was a reporter who had reported on the memo-tearing. She
agreed that Trump was apparently not in violation of the Act
so long as the staff kept repairing and sending on the documents.

What was the further subject of curiosity was WHY the number
of repairs is less than it used to be. Did someone get through to
Trump and convince him to lessen the tearing? Or, have they
given up (or been forced to give up) the attempt to reclaim all
the documents?
--
Rich Ulrich
Sam Plusnet
2018-06-12 20:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:21:04 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:57 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy?  If the author of the document
didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
A copy torn up by D Trump presumably has value as a historical object
because it was torn up by him.
Actually, they are taped back together because it is a legal
requirement under the Presidential Records Act that all memos,
letters, emails, and papers that the president touches be retained and
sent to the National Archives.  The law doesn't say that the items can
be retained in shredded form, so the taping is done.
It also doesn't say that they can be retained in taped form.
Post by Tony Cooper
The law wouldn't allow a re-printing of the document by the sender.
The re-printing might not be an accurate version of the original.
Since Peter Duncanson pointed out that the actual document has value,
and you and Madrigal agreed on different grounds (the law, in your
case), I agree that a reprinted version by itself wouldn't work.  But I
still think the best way to archive a torn document would be as is, with
an authenticated copy for the convenience of future historians attached
if possible.
Post by Tony Cooper
The law does not make exceptions.  If a Cabinet member passes Trump a
note that says "Your fly's unzipped!", and the president handles the
note, it must be preserved.
Actually, the law specifically excepts personal records.
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html
I suppose there might be some debate about whether a note on the
Presidential fly is in the category of materials "do not relate to or
have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory,
or other official or ceremonial duties of the President."  It might
depend on whether he was about to lay a wreath or just have a photo op.
On the subject of exceptions, I wonder what the archives would do if the
president got petulant enough to burn something.
Would they allow him access to matches?
--
Sam Plusnet
Kerr-Mudd,John
2018-06-13 08:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:57:48 GMT, Tony Cooper <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
The law does not make exceptions. If a Cabinet member passes Trump a
note that says "Your fly's unzipped!", and the president handles the
note, it must be preserved.
How many of them are we expecting? "reserve a cabinet!"
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
CDB
2018-06-12 12:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Queen Elizabeth reads the daily reports of the British Parliament's
proceedings.]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily
Briefings). Would these reports be longer than the single page
DJT allegedly demanded and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White
House escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents
that D Trump had torn up, so that they may be archived.
They can't just print out another copy? If the author of the
document didn't keep or archive a hard copy in the first place.
One is forced to conclude that the presidential tearing-up makes it
archivable.
Tony Cooper
2018-06-12 01:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://web.archive.org/web/20130307195445/https://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/TheQueensworkingday/Evening.aspx
The Queen's working day > Evening
The Queen's working day does not stop at the end of the afternoon.
Early evening may see a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Queen
has a weekly meeting alone with the Prime Minister, when they are
both in London (in addition to other meetings throughout the year).
This usually takes place on Wednesdays at 6.30 pm. No written record
is made of such meetings; neither The Queen nor the Prime Minister
talk about what is discussed between them, as communications between
The Queen and the Prime Minister always remains confidential.
At about 7.30 pm a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings,
written by one of the Government's Whips, arrives. The Queen always
reads this the same evening.
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
I am still trying to come to grips with trade with Canada being a
security risk to the US. It's a sticky situation with the imbalance
from all of our imports of weapons-grade maple syrup.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
David Kleinecke
2018-06-12 01:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://web.archive.org/web/20130307195445/https://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/TheQueensworkingday/Evening.aspx
The Queen's working day > Evening
The Queen's working day does not stop at the end of the afternoon.
Early evening may see a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Queen
has a weekly meeting alone with the Prime Minister, when they are
both in London (in addition to other meetings throughout the year).
This usually takes place on Wednesdays at 6.30 pm. No written record
is made of such meetings; neither The Queen nor the Prime Minister
talk about what is discussed between them, as communications between
The Queen and the Prime Minister always remains confidential.
At about 7.30 pm a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings,
written by one of the Government's Whips, arrives. The Queen always
reads this the same evening.
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
I am still trying to come to grips with trade with Canada being a
security risk to the US. It's a sticky situation with the imbalance
from all of our imports of weapons-grade maple syrup.
I got the idea it was cheese.
bill van
2018-06-12 03:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://web.archive.org/web/20130307195445/https://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/TheQueensworkingday/Evening.aspx
The Queen's working day > Evening
The Queen's working day does not stop at the end of the afternoon.
Early evening may see a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Queen
has a weekly meeting alone with the Prime Minister, when they are
both in London (in addition to other meetings throughout the year).
This usually takes place on Wednesdays at 6.30 pm. No written record
is made of such meetings; neither The Queen nor the Prime Minister
talk about what is discussed between them, as communications between
The Queen and the Prime Minister always remains confidential.
At about 7.30 pm a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings,
written by one of the Government's Whips, arrives. The Queen always
reads this the same evening.
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
I am still trying to come to grips with trade with Canada being a
security risk to the US. It's a sticky situation with the imbalance
from all of our imports of weapons-grade maple syrup.
Since then, your lovely and talented president and his mouthpieces have
insulted Canada, its government and its prime minister with
jaw-dropping language. Trump has also said that if Canada carries
through on its threat to impose equal tariffs on the U.S. to the ones
the U.S. imposed on Canada, he will slap a 25-per-cent tariffs on the
Canadian auto industry.

He does not realize how intertwined the two countries'
automobile-building sectors area. Canada has 120,000 auto-making jobs,
which could be wiped out by such a tariff. But various U.S.
organizations said up to 750,000 jobs could be lost in the U.S. by the
same measure. Trump wouldn't merely be shooting himself in the foot,
but amputating both his own legs.

bill
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-12 11:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
I am still trying to come to grips with trade with Canada being a
security risk to the US. It's a sticky situation with the imbalance
from all of our imports of weapons-grade maple syrup.
Since then, your lovely and talented president and his mouthpieces have
insulted Canada, its government and its prime minister with
jaw-dropping language. Trump has also said that if Canada carries
through on its threat to impose equal tariffs on the U.S. to the ones
the U.S. imposed on Canada, he will slap a 25-per-cent tariffs on the
Canadian auto industry.
He does not realize how intertwined the two countries'
automobile-building sectors area. Canada has 120,000 auto-making jobs,
which could be wiped out by such a tariff. But various U.S.
organizations said up to 750,000 jobs could be lost in the U.S. by the
same measure. Trump wouldn't merely be shooting himself in the foot,
but amputating both his own legs.
Then by all means, let him do it!
Sam Plusnet
2018-06-12 20:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
I am still trying to come to grips with trade with Canada being a
security risk to the US. It's a sticky situation with the imbalance
from all of our imports of weapons-grade maple syrup.
Since then, your lovely and talented president and his mouthpieces have
insulted Canada, its government and its prime minister with
jaw-dropping language. Trump has also said that if Canada carries
through on its threat to impose equal tariffs on the U.S. to the ones
the U.S. imposed on Canada, he will slap a 25-per-cent tariffs on the
Canadian auto industry.
He does not realize how intertwined the two countries'
automobile-building sectors area. Canada has 120,000 auto-making jobs,
which could be wiped out by such a tariff. But various U.S.
organizations said up to 750,000 jobs could be lost in the U.S. by the
same measure. Trump wouldn't merely be shooting himself in the foot,
but amputating both his own legs.
Then by all means, let him do it!
He'd simply blame the whole thing on Obama.
--
Sam Plusnet
J. J. Lodder
2018-06-12 17:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://web.archive.org/web/20130307195445/https://www.royal.gov.uk/HMThe
Queen/DayInTheLife/TheQueensworkingday/Evening.aspx
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The Queen's working day > Evening
The Queen's working day does not stop at the end of the afternoon.
Early evening may see a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Queen
has a weekly meeting alone with the Prime Minister, when they are
both in London (in addition to other meetings throughout the year).
This usually takes place on Wednesdays at 6.30 pm. No written record
is made of such meetings; neither The Queen nor the Prime Minister
talk about what is discussed between them, as communications between
The Queen and the Prime Minister always remains confidential.
At about 7.30 pm a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings,
written by one of the Government's Whips, arrives. The Queen always
reads this the same evening.
Which is better than GWB did with his PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings).
Would these reports be longer than the single page DJT allegedly demanded
and ignores?
I was entertained by the news that the task of one recent White House
escapee was to repair, with sticky tape, all the documents that D Trump
had torn up, so that they may be archived.
I am still trying to come to grips with trade with Canada being a
security risk to the US. It's a sticky situation with the imbalance
from all of our imports of weapons-grade maple syrup.
Since then, your lovely and talented president and his mouthpieces have
insulted Canada, its government and its prime minister with
jaw-dropping language. Trump has also said that if Canada carries
through on its threat to impose equal tariffs on the U.S. to the ones
the U.S. imposed on Canada, he will slap a 25-per-cent tariffs on the
Canadian auto industry.
He does not realize how intertwined the two countries'
automobile-building sectors area. Canada has 120,000 auto-making jobs,
which could be wiped out by such a tariff. But various U.S.
organizations said up to 750,000 jobs could be lost in the U.S. by the
same measure. Trump wouldn't merely be shooting himself in the foot,
but amputating both his own legs.
Just repeating a Brit mistake.
The Brits think that the EU is about having a common market,
in oreder to sell the junk that their national industries produce.
They have completely missed the fact
that it has evolved into a common economy,

Jan
Jerry Friedman
2018-06-12 20:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by bill van
Post by Tony Cooper
I am still trying to come to grips with trade with Canada being a
security risk to the US.  It's a sticky situation with the imbalance
from all of our imports of weapons-grade maple syrup.
Since then, your lovely and talented president and his mouthpieces have
insulted Canada, its government and its prime minister with jaw-dropping
language. Trump has also said that if Canada carries through on its
threat to impose equal tariffs on the U.S. to the ones the U.S. imposed
on Canada, he will slap a 25-per-cent tariffs on the Canadian auto
industry.
He does not realize how intertwined the two countries'
automobile-building sectors area. Canada has 120,000 auto-making jobs,
which could be wiped out by such a tariff. But various U.S.
organizations said up to 750,000 jobs could be lost in the U.S.  by the
same measure. Trump wouldn't merely be shooting himself in the foot, but
amputating both his own legs.
Maybe in his mindlet, he has to show that Canada can't bully him.
(Canada is much bigger than the U.S. and has a dominating position on
top.) Thus he will defy you brutes even at the cost of amputating both
his own legs--whatever it takes.
--
Jerry Friedman
Janet
2018-06-12 13:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...
Post by Tony Cooper
I am still trying to come to grips with trade with Canada being a
security risk to the US. It's a sticky situation with the imbalance
from all of our imports of weapons-grade maple syrup.
Trump deserves a sticky end.

Janet
J. J. Lodder
2018-06-12 17:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
@gmail.com says...
Post by Tony Cooper
I am still trying to come to grips with trade with Canada being a
security risk to the US. It's a sticky situation with the imbalance
from all of our imports of weapons-grade maple syrup.
Trump deserves a sticky end.
The Canadians should send him a huge barrel of maple syrup,
as a great present that fits his monumental size,
and hope for the best,

Jan
s***@gowanhill.com
2018-06-12 20:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In England, or more completely the UK, she has at least as much
opportunity to follow the progress of a Bill through Parliament as
anyone else via the normal published proceedings (online as well as
paper).
She probably also flicks over to BBC Parliament during the commercial breaks on the racing.

Owain
s***@gowanhill.com
2018-06-12 20:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
They are the same human person, but they are two completely separate
"jobs"
I expect she's got a different crown for each 'hat' she wears.

Owain
Paul Carmichael
2018-06-05 11:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:33:42 +0200, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter T. Daniels
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
I think that the judges on the Brit version of The Voice are American. There was also a
Welsh judge, but this year I don't know.
will.i.am and Jennifer Hudson. will.i.am is a permanent fixture.
Jennifer Hudson has been in two series so far.
The British/Irish coaches have been: Jessie J, Sir Tom Jones, Danny
O'Donoghue, Kylie Minogue, Ricky Wilson, Rita Ora, Boy George, Paloma
Faith, Gavin Rossdale and Olly Murs.
I think I've got used to all singers putting on an American accent, so subconsciously (to
me) they're all American.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
RH Draney
2018-06-05 16:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
will.i.am and Jennifer Hudson. will.i.am is a permanent fixture.
Jennifer Hudson has been in two series so far.
The British/Irish coaches have been: Jessie J, Sir Tom Jones, Danny
O'Donoghue, Kylie Minogue, Ricky Wilson, Rita Ora, Boy George, Paloma
Faith, Gavin Rossdale and Olly Murs.
I think I've got used to all singers putting on an American accent, so
subconsciously (to me) they're all American.
Except for Tina Turner...I'm not sure *what* that accent she's using is
supposed to be, but it's not any kind of American....r
Paul Carmichael
2018-06-06 09:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
will.i.am and Jennifer Hudson. will.i.am is a permanent fixture.
Jennifer Hudson has been in two series so far.
The British/Irish coaches have been: Jessie J, Sir Tom Jones, Danny
O'Donoghue, Kylie Minogue, Ricky Wilson, Rita Ora, Boy George, Paloma
Faith, Gavin Rossdale and Olly Murs.
I think I've got used to all singers putting on an American accent, so subconsciously
(to me) they're all American.
Except for Tina Turner...I'm not sure *what* that accent she's using is supposed to be,
but it's not any kind of American....r
Sounds American to me. Just like Paul McCartney - #sumwans nackin at the doh...
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Kerr-Mudd,John
2018-06-06 14:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 09:51:41 GMT, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by RH Draney
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
will.i.am and Jennifer Hudson. will.i.am is a permanent fixture.
Jennifer Hudson has been in two series so far.
The British/Irish coaches have been: Jessie J, Sir Tom Jones, Danny
O'Donoghue, Kylie Minogue, Ricky Wilson, Rita Ora, Boy George,
Paloma Faith, Gavin Rossdale and Olly Murs.
I think I've got used to all singers putting on an American accent,
so subconsciously (to me) they're all American.
Except for Tina Turner...I'm not sure *what* that accent she's using
is supposed to be, but it's not any kind of American....r
Sounds American to me. Just like Paul McCartney - #sumwans nackin at the doh...
Mid-Atlantic; c.f. Mr Innes' song - erm I can't find it now; something
like "I keep all my vowels round"
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-06 14:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 09:51:41 GMT, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by RH Draney
Post by Paul Carmichael
I think I've got used to all singers putting on an American accent,
so subconsciously (to me) they're all American.
Except for Tina Turner...I'm not sure *what* that accent she's using
is supposed to be, but it's not any kind of American....r
Sounds American to me. Just like Paul McCartney - #sumwans nackin at the doh...
Mid-Atlantic; c.f. Mr Innes' song - erm I can't find it now; something
like "I keep all my vowels round"
Yesterday the BBC played an excerpt of Alistair Cooke's "Letter from
America" about Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Supposedly the paragon
of "Mid-Atlantic," he sounded almost purely American. Maybe he got
complaints, so that by the time I was sometimes hearing his broadcast
(which was on around midnight here) toward the end of his run, he sounded
much more English.
Janet
2018-06-06 15:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Yesterday the BBC played an excerpt of Alistair Cooke's "Letter from
America" about Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Supposedly the paragon
of "Mid-Atlantic," he sounded almost purely American. Maybe he got
complaints, so that by the time I was sometimes hearing his broadcast
(which was on around midnight here) toward the end of his run, he sounded
much more English.
I've never thought Cooke sounded mid-atlantic.

I don't know if this is his LFA broadcast,but same time same subject.



He sounds unmistakeably British to me.

Janet.
Paul Carmichael
2018-06-06 15:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Yesterday the BBC played an excerpt of Alistair Cooke's "Letter from
America" about Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Supposedly the paragon
of "Mid-Atlantic," he sounded almost purely American. Maybe he got
complaints, so that by the time I was sometimes hearing his broadcast
(which was on around midnight here) toward the end of his run, he sounded
much more English.
I've never thought Cooke sounded mid-atlantic.
I don't know if this is his LFA broadcast,but same time same subject.
http://youtu.be/Qc3c9gtwiwc
He sounds unmistakeably British to me.
No way Pedro.

Those vowels are stars and stripes.

And "CONdolence"? Taaask, Pramise etc.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Paul Carmichael
2018-06-06 15:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Yesterday the BBC played an excerpt of Alistair Cooke's "Letter from
America" about Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Supposedly the paragon
of "Mid-Atlantic," he sounded almost purely American. Maybe he got
complaints, so that by the time I was sometimes hearing his broadcast
(which was on around midnight here) toward the end of his run, he sounded
much more English.
   I've never thought Cooke sounded mid-atlantic.
   I don't know if this is his LFA broadcast,but same time same subject.
http://youtu.be/Qc3c9gtwiwc
   He sounds unmistakeably British to me.
No way Pedro.
Those vowels are stars and stripes.
And "CONdolence"? Taaask, Pramise etc.
And a bit further on, a rhotic "torch". "Caancentrated."...

Bored now. Back to work.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-06 16:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Yesterday the BBC played an excerpt of Alistair Cooke's "Letter from
America" about Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Supposedly the paragon
of "Mid-Atlantic," he sounded almost purely American. Maybe he got
complaints, so that by the time I was sometimes hearing his broadcast
(which was on around midnight here) toward the end of his run, he sounded
much more English.
I've never thought Cooke sounded mid-atlantic.
I don't know if this is his LFA broadcast,but same time same subject.
http://youtu.be/Qc3c9gtwiwc
He sounds unmistakeably British to me.
I think you need to wash out your ear trumpet. Alistair Cooke's
pronunciation was thoroughly Americanised and at a very early
stage in his broadcasting career. A fragment available from
1947, which is the earliest recording I've been able to find,
already betrays a wealth of Leftpondian vowels.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-06 16:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Yesterday the BBC played an excerpt of Alistair Cooke's "Letter from
America" about Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Supposedly the paragon
of "Mid-Atlantic," he sounded almost purely American. Maybe he got
complaints, so that by the time I was sometimes hearing his broadcast
(which was on around midnight here) toward the end of his run, he sounded
much more English.
I've never thought Cooke sounded mid-atlantic.
I don't know if this is his LFA broadcast,but same time same subject.
http://youtu.be/Qc3c9gtwiwc
He sounds unmistakeably British to me.
I think you need to wash out your ear trumpet. Alistair Cooke's
pronunciation was thoroughly Americanised and at a very early
stage in his broadcasting career. A fragment available from
1947, which is the earliest recording I've been able to find,
already betrays a wealth of Leftpondian vowels.
But, curiously, not in the first seconds of Janet's JFK clip.

Maybe that week he was unconsciously dissociating himself from a society
that could do such a heinous thing, reverting to childhood diction.

But note that the disagreement is the very hallmark of Mid-Atlantic. He
sounds sort-of ok to both sides.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-06 16:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Yesterday the BBC played an excerpt of Alistair Cooke's "Letter from
America" about Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Supposedly the paragon
of "Mid-Atlantic," he sounded almost purely American. Maybe he got
complaints, so that by the time I was sometimes hearing his broadcast
(which was on around midnight here) toward the end of his run, he sounded
much more English.
I've never thought Cooke sounded mid-atlantic.
I don't know if this is his LFA broadcast,but same time same subject.
President Kennedy and Senator Kennedy were not the same person.
Post by Janet
http://youtu.be/Qc3c9gtwiwc
That was five years earlier.
Post by Janet
He sounds unmistakeably British to me.
He rounds several vowels that Americans wouldn't, and the stress on CON-do-lence
is most wondrous strange.
Janet
2018-06-06 23:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Yesterday the BBC played an excerpt of Alistair Cooke's "Letter from
America" about Bobby Kennedy's assassination. Supposedly the paragon
of "Mid-Atlantic," he sounded almost purely American. Maybe he got
complaints, so that by the time I was sometimes hearing his broadcast
(which was on around midnight here) toward the end of his run, he sounded
much more English.
I've never thought Cooke sounded mid-atlantic.
I don't know if this is his LFA broadcast,but same time same subject.
President Kennedy and Senator Kennedy were not the same person.
Sorry, misread your post.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Janet
http://youtu.be/Qc3c9gtwiwc
That was five years earlier.
Post by Janet
He sounds unmistakeably British to me.
He rounds several vowels that Americans wouldn't, and the stress on CON-do-lence
is most wondrous strange.
It struck me to, so strange I wondered if that was American influence.
Br E emphasis is on the second syllable.

Janet
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-05 13:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter T. Daniels
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
I think that the judges on the Brit version of The Voice are American. There was also a
Welsh judge, but this year I don't know.
How have the mighty fallen! US pop was invigorated by the "British
invasion" in 1964. But *The Voice* is on its last legs -- it moved to a
different network this season, and that's almost always an act of
desperation.

No idea who the judges are, though. Nor, if I knew their identities, would
I know who they are, probably.

Nice deployment of ambiguity there.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-05 17:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:02:47 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter T. Daniels
America's Got Talent got underway last week. Once again, there's not one
American judge on the panel.
I think that the judges on the Brit version of The Voice are American. There was also a
Welsh judge, but this year I don't know.
How have the mighty fallen! US pop was invigorated by the "British
invasion" in 1964. But *The Voice* is on its last legs -- it moved to a
different network this season, and that's almost always an act of
desperation.
The Voice UK continues. It changed channels from the BBC to ITV because
ITV offered the makers more money.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No idea who the judges are, though. Nor, if I knew their identities, would
I know who they are, probably.
Nice deployment of ambiguity there.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Loading...