Discussion:
the only one of my friends who had their dad around
(too old to reply)
Lazypierrot
2019-11-12 05:25:34 UTC
Permalink
I would like to know about the the following sentence.

I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and the only one of
my friends who had their dad around.

I think the sentence means that my friends did not have their dad around, but only
I had my dad around at home.

I wonder what the relative pronoun "who" refers to, "the only one" or "my
firends."

If it refers to "the only one", why "their" is used in who had their dad around?
If it refers to "my friends", I think it means that my friends had their dad around.

I need your help.

Cordially,

LP
Tony Cooper
2019-11-12 05:33:35 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 21:25:34 -0800 (PST), Lazypierrot
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know about the the following sentence.
I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and the only one of
my friends who had their dad around.
I think the sentence means that my friends did not have their dad around, but only
I had my dad around at home.
Without context, I'd say that there are two things being said:

1. His dad is what we now call a "stay-at-home father" and he doesn't
understand why his mom is the one who works/or is out of the house.

2. He's the only one of his friends that has a dad that's around.
Presumably, the dads of the other kids are divorced/dead/or never were
part of the family.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
b***@aol.com
2019-11-12 05:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know about the the following sentence.
I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and the only
one of my friends who had their dad around.
I think the sentence means that my friends did not have their dad around,
but only I had my dad around at home.
I wonder what the relative pronoun "who" refers to, "the only one"
Yes.
Post by Lazypierrot
or "my firends."
If it refers to "the only one", why "their" is used in who had their dad around?
If it refers to "my friends", I think it means that my friends had their dad around.
But the sentence no longer makes sense.

The problem is that the original phrasing is unsound, as it should go "I
was the only one in my group of friends" (as he/she isn't one of his/her
own friends) or the like, followed by "who had his/her dad around".
Post by Lazypierrot
I need your help.
Cordially,
LP
Mark Brader
2019-11-12 07:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know about the the following sentence.
I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and
the only one of my friends who had their dad around.
The problem is that the original phrasing is unsound, as it should go
"I was the only one in my group of friends..."
Yes, exactly. The original is comprensible, it's the sort of thing
someone might say informally, but "I" am not one of "my friends", so
it's not actually correct.
--
Mark Brader "...there are other means of persuasion
***@vex.net besides killing and threatening to kill."
Toronto --Dashiell Hammett, The Maltese Falcon
Lazypierrot
2019-11-12 06:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know about the the following sentence.
I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and the only one of
my friends who had their dad around.
I think the sentence means that my friends did not have their dad around, but only
I had my dad around at home.
I wonder what the relative pronoun "who" refers to, "the only one" or "my
firends."
If it refers to "the only one", why "their" is used in who had their dad around?
If it refers to "my friends", I think it means that my friends had their dad around.
I need your help.
Cordially,
LP
Thanks for your comment. Based on the context, the friends of the girl who
wrote this sentence, as well as the girl herself, seem to have dads. But her
friends' dads worked outside and not around at home during the day. So she wondered why only her dad was around.

Thus, in other words, the girl was the only one of her friends who had their dad
around.

I still would like to know what the relative pronoun "who" refers to, "the only
one" or "her firends."

Cordially,

LP
Eric Walker
2019-11-12 10:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know about the the following sentence.
I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and the
only one of my friends who had their dad around.
I think the sentence means that my friends did not have their dad
around, but only I had my dad around at home.
I wonder what the relative pronoun "who" refers to, "the only one" or
"my friends."
Restore the elided parts of that elliptical sentence and perhaps it will
be clearer:

"I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and [I
was] the only one of my friends who had their dad around."

Note that "their" should be "his", because he is referring only to
himself, so it should be:

"I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and [I
was] the only one of my friends who had his dad around."

If that confuses, try this:

"I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and [I
was] the only one of my friends whose dad was around."

The speaker is saying that in his or her youth, the idea of a mother
working while the father stayed home was utterly alien and contrary to
all his of her experience (by observation of his friends' households).
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-12 15:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know about the the following sentence.
I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and the
only one of my friends who had their dad around.
I think the sentence means that my friends did not have their dad
around, but only I had my dad around at home.
I wonder what the relative pronoun "who" refers to, "the only one" or
"my friends."
Restore the elided parts of that elliptical sentence and perhaps it will
You have no license to invent "elided parts." You have no idea what has
been omitted or assumed.
Post by Eric Walker
"I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and [I
was] the only one of my friends who had their dad around."
Note that "their" should be "his", because he is referring only to
Except that "he" turns out to be "she," according to the author.

Don't make sexist assumptions.
Post by Eric Walker
"I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and [I
was] the only one of my friends who had his dad around."
So you too think that she is one of her friends?
Post by Eric Walker
"I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and [I
was] the only one of my friends whose dad was around."
The speaker is saying that in his or her youth, the idea of a mother
working while the father stayed home was utterly alien and contrary to
all his of her experience (by observation of his friends' households).
And you project your Victorian prejudices on an utterly alien culture.
Quinn C
2019-11-12 22:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know about the the following sentence.
I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and the
only one of my friends who had their dad around.
Note that "their" should be "his", because he is referring only to
"I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and [I
was] the only one of my friends who had his dad around."
I feel the "they" in the original is not just replacing "his" or "her",
but gives a nuance of possible or expected plurality, or maybe
genericness. I read it more on the lines of: there were two types of
people in my group of friends - those who had their dad around and
those who didn't. But I was the only one in the first bunch.
--
There is a whole cottage industry devoted to people who are
upset by the idea of others being outraged.
-- Washington Post 2019-09-18
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-12 15:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know about the the following sentence.
I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and the only one of
my friends who had their dad around.
I think the sentence means that my friends did not have their dad around, but only
I had my dad around at home.
I wonder what the relative pronoun "who" refers to, "the only one" or "my
firends."
If it refers to "the only one", why "their" is used in who had their dad around?
If it refers to "my friends", I think it means that my friends had their dad around.
I need your help.
You say that you are one of your friends.

No good.
Spains Harden
2019-11-12 16:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know about the the following sentence.
I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and the only one of
my friends who had their dad around.
I think the sentence means that my friends did not have their dad around, but only
I had my dad around at home.
I wonder what the relative pronoun "who" refers to, "the only one" or "my
firends."
If it refers to "the only one", why "their" is used in who had their dad around?
If it refers to "my friends", I think it means that my friends had their dad around.
I need your help.
You say that you are one of your friends.
No good.
Friends are a group aren't they? You can be one of a group - I can be
one of my family.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-12 17:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know about the the following sentence.
I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and the only one of
my friends who had their dad around.
I think the sentence means that my friends did not have their dad around, but only
I had my dad around at home.
I wonder what the relative pronoun "who" refers to, "the only one" or "my
firends."
If it refers to "the only one", why "their" is used in who had their dad around?
If it refers to "my friends", I think it means that my friends had their dad around.
I need your help.
You say that you are one of your friends.
No good.
Friends are a group aren't they? You can be one of a group - I can be
one of my family.
You are not one of your friends.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-12 20:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know about the the following sentence.
I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and the only one of
my friends who had their dad around.
I think the sentence means that my friends did not have their dad around, but only
I had my dad around at home.
I wonder what the relative pronoun "who" refers to, "the only one" or "my
firends."
If it refers to "the only one", why "their" is used in who had their dad around?
If it refers to "my friends", I think it means that my friends had their dad around.
I need your help.
You say that you are one of your friends.
No good.
Friends are a group aren't they? You can be one of a group - I can be
one of my family.
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
"We all" is not your friends; it is you plus your friends.

I should just let Athel 'andle 'Arrison.
Eric Walker
2019-11-13 08:11:54 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Spains Harden
2019-11-13 13:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.

I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to
misquote Paul McCartney.
CDB
2019-11-13 13:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to
misquote Paul McCartney.
"Your family" is analogous to "your group of friends". I don't think
there would be much objection to "the only one in my group of
friends/class/crowd/mob/neighbourhood".

But someone has already said that, I think. (Sorry, anon, I wasn't
paying close attention at first.)
Spains Harden
2019-11-13 15:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to
misquote Paul McCartney.
"Your family" is analogous to "your group of friends". I don't think
there would be much objection to "the only one in my group of
friends/class/crowd/mob/neighbourhood".
I don't think there would be much objection to:

"the only one in my class".
"the only one of my crowd".
"the only one in my mob".
"the only one in my neighborhood".

Only "the only one of my friends" falls foul of PTD's rule. Being
friends is unambiguous in the same way that class, crowd, mob,
neighborhood and family are. I cannot be your friend unless you are
also my friend. If phrases can be synonyms, then "my friends" and
"my group of friends" are synonymous.
b***@aol.com
2019-11-13 17:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by CDB
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to
misquote Paul McCartney.
"Your family" is analogous to "your group of friends". I don't think
there would be much objection to "the only one in my group of
friends/class/crowd/mob/neighbourhood".
"the only one in my class".
"the only one of my crowd".
"the only one in my mob".
"the only one in my neighborhood".
Only "the only one of my friends" falls foul of PTD's rule. Being
friends is unambiguous in the same way that class, crowd, mob,
neighborhood and family are. I cannot be your friend unless you are
also my friend. If phrases can be synonyms, then "my friends" and
"my group of friends" are synonymous.
Literally, "my group of friends" could mean the group of my friends
excluding myself, but it's generally understood (by hypallage) as "the
group that my friends and myself constitute".
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-13 19:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Spains Harden
Post by CDB
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to
misquote Paul McCartney.
"Your family" is analogous to "your group of friends". I don't think
there would be much objection to "the only one in my group of
friends/class/crowd/mob/neighbourhood".
"the only one in my class".
"the only one of my crowd".
"the only one in my mob".
"the only one in my neighborhood".
Only "the only one of my friends" falls foul of PTD's rule. Being
friends is unambiguous in the same way that class, crowd, mob,
neighborhood and family are. I cannot be your friend unless you are
also my friend. If phrases can be synonyms, then "my friends" and
"my group of friends" are synonymous.
Literally, "my group of friends" could mean the group of my friends
excluding myself, but it's generally understood (by hypallage) as "the
group that my friends and myself constitute".
Does that work only when "my group" is part of the equation?
I keep coming up with notions such as "My friends don't understand
why I do this", in which the speaker is not a member of his group
of friends.

bill
b***@aol.com
2019-11-13 19:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Spains Harden
Post by CDB
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to
misquote Paul McCartney.
"Your family" is analogous to "your group of friends". I don't think
there would be much objection to "the only one in my group of
friends/class/crowd/mob/neighbourhood".
"the only one in my class".
"the only one of my crowd".
"the only one in my mob".
"the only one in my neighborhood".
Only "the only one of my friends" falls foul of PTD's rule. Being
friends is unambiguous in the same way that class, crowd, mob,
neighborhood and family are. I cannot be your friend unless you are
also my friend. If phrases can be synonyms, then "my friends" and
"my group of friends" are synonymous.
Literally, "my group of friends" could mean the group of my friends
excluding myself, but it's generally understood (by hypallage) as "the
group that my friends and myself constitute".
Does that work only when "my group" is part of the equation?
No.
Post by b***@shaw.ca
I keep coming up with notions such as "My friends don't understand
why I do this", in which the speaker is not a member of his group
of friends.
Yes, of course, that's what "my friends" actually means.
Post by b***@shaw.ca
bill
Quinn C
2019-11-13 22:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Spains Harden
Post by CDB
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to
misquote Paul McCartney.
"Your family" is analogous to "your group of friends". I don't think
there would be much objection to "the only one in my group of
friends/class/crowd/mob/neighbourhood".
"the only one in my class".
"the only one of my crowd".
"the only one in my mob".
"the only one in my neighborhood".
Only "the only one of my friends" falls foul of PTD's rule. Being
friends is unambiguous in the same way that class, crowd, mob,
neighborhood and family are. I cannot be your friend unless you are
also my friend. If phrases can be synonyms, then "my friends" and
"my group of friends" are synonymous.
Literally, "my group of friends" could mean the group of my friends
excluding myself, but it's generally understood (by hypallage) as "the
group that my friends and myself constitute".
Does that work only when "my group" is part of the equation?
I keep coming up with notions such as "My friends don't understand
why I do this", in which the speaker is not a member of his group
of friends.
I think we can usually interpret these things very fluidly in the way
that makes the most sense. Would you pause even a moment at "I'm the
only one of my siblings to live abroad"?
--
...an explanatory principle - like "gravity" or "instinct" -
really explains nothing. It's a sort of conventional agreement
between scientists to stop trying to explain things at a
certain point. -- Gregory Bateson
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-14 14:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by b***@shaw.ca
I keep coming up with notions such as "My friends don't understand
why I do this", in which the speaker is not a member of his group
of friends.
Of course.
Post by Quinn C
I think we can usually interpret these things very fluidly in the way
that makes the most sense. Would you pause even a moment at "I'm the
only one of my siblings to live abroad"?
It is a solecism. You are no more one of your siblings than you are
one of your friends.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-14 14:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by CDB
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to
misquote Paul McCartney.
"Your family" is analogous to "your group of friends". I don't think
there would be much objection to "the only one in my group of
friends/class/crowd/mob/neighbourhood".
"the only one in my class".
"the only one of my crowd".
"the only one in my mob".
"the only one in my neighborhood".
Only "the only one of my friends" falls foul of PTD's rule. Being
friends is unambiguous in the same way that class, crowd, mob,
neighborhood and family are. I cannot be your friend unless you are
also my friend.
What nonsense!
Post by Spains Harden
If phrases can be synonyms, then "my friends" and
"my group of friends" are synonymous.
Cleary not, since "I" am included in "my group," but not in "my friends."
Spains Harden
2019-11-14 15:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Spains Harden
Post by CDB
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to
misquote Paul McCartney.
"Your family" is analogous to "your group of friends". I don't think
there would be much objection to "the only one in my group of
friends/class/crowd/mob/neighbourhood".
"the only one in my class".
"the only one of my crowd".
"the only one in my mob".
"the only one in my neighborhood".
Only "the only one of my friends" falls foul of PTD's rule. Being
friends is unambiguous in the same way that class, crowd, mob,
neighborhood and family are. I cannot be your friend unless you are
also my friend.
What nonsense!
Post by Spains Harden
If phrases can be synonyms, then "my friends" and
"my group of friends" are synonymous.
Cleary not, since "I" am included in "my group," but not in "my friends."
So you wouldn't be able to say:

"We arranged a meeting of all of us friends?"

You can be in your family: "the whole family met up"; or you can be
separate from your family: "I met up with my family"; and the same
applies to friends, groups, clans, mobs, crowds, classes and
neighborhoods.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-14 14:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to
misquote Paul McCartney.
"Your family" is analogous to "your group of friends". I don't think
there would be much objection to "the only one in my group of
friends/class/crowd/mob/neighbourhood".
Of course not.
Post by CDB
But someone has already said that, I think. (Sorry, anon, I wasn't
paying close attention at first.)
Eric Walker
2019-11-14 06:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to misquote
Paul McCartney.
T<he religious sect commonly called "Quakers" is formally The Religious
Society of Friends. Among their customs is that of not removing one's
hat when it would otherwise be considered proper manners.

From Wikipedia:

"In the UK, the acronym STEP or PEST is used (peace, equality, simplicity
and truth). In his book Quaker Speak, British Friend Alastair Heron,
lists the following ways in which British Friends testify to God:[113]
Opposition to betting and gambling, capital punishment, conscription, hat
honour (the largely historical practice of dipping one's hat toward
social superiors), oaths, slavery, times and seasons, tithing and
promotion of integrity (or truth), peace, penal reform, plain language,
relief of suffering, simplicity, social order, Sunday observance,
sustainability, temperance and moderation."

In one of the Nero Wolfe novels, Archie comes in from outdoors and
proceeds to the office without removing his hat. Wolfe looks up and says
coldly "Greetings, Friend Goodwin."
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-14 07:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to misquote
Paul McCartney.
T<he religious sect commonly called "Quakers" is formally The Religious
Society of Friends. Among their customs is that of not removing one's
hat when it would otherwise be considered proper manners.
"In the UK, the acronym STEP or PEST is used (peace, equality, simplicity
and truth). In his book Quaker Speak, British Friend Alastair Heron,
lists the following ways in which British Friends testify to God:[113]
Opposition to betting and gambling, capital punishment, conscription, hat
honour (the largely historical practice of dipping one's hat toward
social superiors), oaths, slavery, times and seasons, tithing and
promotion of integrity (or truth), peace, penal reform, plain language,
relief of suffering, simplicity, social order, Sunday observance,
sustainability, temperance and moderation."
In one of the Nero Wolfe novels, Archie comes in from outdoors and
proceeds to the office without removing his hat. Wolfe looks up and says
coldly "Greetings, Friend Goodwin."
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of rules
about hats.

bill
Eric Walker
2019-11-14 10:47:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 23:18:11 -0800, billvan wrote:

[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of rules
about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not always the
same from world to to world.

If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you keep
it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-14 14:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of rules
about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not always the
same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you keep
it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm. At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner". None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards. The thought never occurred to me.
--
Jerry Friedman
Eric Walker
2019-11-15 04:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not always
the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm. At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner". None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards. The thought never occurred to me.
It seems it is not only custom but law:

U.S. Code § 301. National anthem

(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not
in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
heart; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."

(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Peter Moylan
2019-11-15 05:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not always
the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm. At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner". None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards. The thought never occurred to me.
U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not
in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
heart; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
At a graduation ceremony, academic dress must surely qualify as uniform.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-15 06:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not always
the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm. At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner". None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards. The thought never occurred to me.
U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not
in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
heart; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
At a graduation ceremony, academic dress must surely qualify as uniform.
I don't think so. A uniform is worn for all or most of a person's
working life. Academic dress for grad ceremonies is at most
a once-a-year thing. A different word is needed. Garb? Costume? Regalia? Kit?

bill
Snidely
2019-11-15 10:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not always
the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm. At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner". None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards. The thought never occurred to me.
U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not
in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
heart; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
At a graduation ceremony, academic dress must surely qualify as uniform.
I don't think so. A uniform is worn for all or most of a person's
working life. Academic dress for grad ceremonies is at most
a once-a-year thing.
What, not for convocation?
Post by b***@shaw.ca
A different word is needed. Garb? Costume? Regalia? Kit?
Restraints.

/dps
--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-16 15:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snidely
Post by b***@shaw.ca
I don't think so. A uniform is worn for all or most of a person's
working life. Academic dress for grad ceremonies is at most
a once-a-year thing.
What, not for convocation?
Is "convocation" used at many universities? I was surprised upon coming
to Chicago in 1972 that they would hold a "convocation" at the drop of
a cap (and gown) for any university-wide event, not just the quarterly
awarding of degrees (most U of C degrees are Ph.D.'s, so their awarding
isn't confined primarily to June). One of my professors told me that
since the faculty had spent a lot of money on the garb and regalia of
their almae matres (many of them in Europe, and European robes were
much more colorful than US ones in those days), they liked to show them
off. There was almost always an outdoor procession from the staging
areas to Rockefeller Chapel.
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-16 16:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snidely
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world.  The rules are not always
the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on?  Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm.  At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner".  None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards.  The thought never occurred to me.
  U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
   (1) when the flag is displayed—
     (A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
     first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
     note;
     (B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present
but not
     in uniform may render the military salute in the manner
provided for
     individuals in uniform; and
     (C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
     attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
     uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
     right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being
over the
     heart; and
   (2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face
toward the
   music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were
displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
At a graduation ceremony, academic dress must surely qualify as uniform.
I don't think so. A uniform is worn for all or most of a person's
working life. Academic dress for grad ceremonies is at most
a once-a-year thing.
What, not for convocation?
Nope. Nobody but us is around.
Post by Snidely
Post by b***@shaw.ca
A different word is needed. Garb? Costume? Regalia? Kit?
Restraints.
Heaters. They feel pretty good in the parking lot after a December
graduation, but not so good in May.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-15 14:29:16 UTC
Permalink
[keeping my cap on during the "Banner"]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Eric Walker
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
At a graduation ceremony, academic dress must surely qualify as uniform.
I don't think so. A uniform is worn for all or most of a person's
working life. Academic dress for grad ceremonies is at most
a once-a-year thing.
(We have one in May and one in December so we can fit them into our gym.
ObScure references: I always think of the place our procession goes,
with the usual slovenly dignity, as the gymnasium proper.)

A different word is needed. Garb? Costume? Regalia? Kit?

I see we've ruled out "strip".

If you lose your tassel (as I've done), you can order it from a supplier
of "academic regalia".
--
Jerry Friedman
HVS
2019-11-15 15:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[keeping my cap on during the "Banner"]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Eric Walker
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable,
should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it
at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are
wearing headdress".)
At a graduation ceremony, academic dress must surely qualify as uniform.
I don't think so. A uniform is worn for all or most of a person's
working life. Academic dress for grad ceremonies is at most
a once-a-year thing.
(We have one in May and one in December so we can fit them into our gym.
ObScure references: I always think of the place our procession goes,
with the usual slovenly dignity, as the gymnasium proper.)
A different word is needed. Garb? Costume? Regalia? Kit?
"Academic garb" seems appropriate to me.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30 yrs) and BrEng (36 yrs),
indiscriminately mixed
CDB
2019-11-15 12:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot
of rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not
always the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do
you keep it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm. At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of
veterans has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has
sung "The Star-spangled Banner". None or almost none of us faculty
members have removed their mortarboards. The thought never
occurred to me.
U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music
known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national
anthem— (1) when the flag is displayed— (A) individuals in uniform
should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and
maintain that position until the last note; (B) members of the Armed
Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the
military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform;
and (C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
heart; and (2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should
face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the
flag were displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are
wearing headdress".)
This being AUE, it is only natural to note that the auxiliary used
thoughout is "should", not "shall". To me, that makes it a
recommendation, not an enforceable provision of the law.
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-15 14:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not always
the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm. At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner". None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards. The thought never occurred to me.
U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not
in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
heart; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
That is, the "should" is a matter of law, but there's no "must". If you
don't face toward the music, you don't have to face the music.

By the way, I'm also going to confess that I sometimes wear a T-shirt
with a picture of the U.S. flag on it. It was given to me.
Post by Eric Walker
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
Native Americans?

Likewise one has to presume that "individuals in uniform" means "members
of the Armed Forces in military uniform". Congress didn't opine that
civilian baseball players, or for that matter waiters who are wearing
their employer's T-shirts, should give the military salute.
--
Jerry Friedman
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-15 16:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not always
the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm. At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner". None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards. The thought never occurred to me.
U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not
in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
heart; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
Interesting.
Would this law apply to visitors and immigrants (legal status various)?

I know that ignorance of a law is not considered to be a valid excuse
for breaking it, but it would be foolish to expect a casual visitor to
the country to know - especially since it seems that a fair number of US
citizens are not aware of it.
--
Sam Plusnet
Tony Cooper
2019-11-15 22:11:13 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 18:06:46 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Sam Plusnet
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world.  The rules are not always
the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on?  Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm.  At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner".  None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards.  The thought never occurred to me.
  U.S. Code §?301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
   (1) when the flag is displayed—
     (A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
     first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
     note;
     (B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not
     in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
     individuals in uniform; and
     (C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
     attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
     uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
     right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
     heart; and
   (2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
   music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were
displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
Interesting.
Would this law apply to visitors and immigrants (legal status various)?
I know that ignorance of a law is not considered to be a valid excuse
for breaking it, but it would be foolish to expect a casual visitor to
the country to know - especially since it seems that a fair number of US
citizens are not aware of it.
There are endless traps for the unwary.
I was startled to read today that Brits, and presumably other non-US
citizens, can be deported from the US and denied subsequent entry if
they're found smoking cannabis, even in those states where smoking
cannabis is legal. That is, however legal it may be in those particular
states, it's still a federal, deportable, offence.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/15/britons-who-legally-smoke-cannabis-in-the-us-risk-being-deported
If Boris comes over, we have an agent in place with instructions to
plant cannabis on his person so he can be whisked aboard a plane and
sent back. For the good of the country, knowledge of the agent has
been withheld from Trump.

Boris is not a brutal dictator, so he's not a close friend of Trump's,
but Trump would support Boris because Boris almost makes Trump look
like a competent world leader.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Eric Walker
2019-11-16 07:02:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 17:11:13 -0500, Tony Cooper wrote:

[...]
Post by Tony Cooper
If Boris comes over, we have an agent in place with instructions to
plant cannabis on his person so he can be whisked aboard a plane and
sent back. For the good of the country, knowledge of the agent has been
withheld from Trump.
And if he is captured or killed, the Secretary will disavow all knowledge
of his activities...
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-15 22:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not always
the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm. At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner". None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards. The thought never occurred to me.
U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not
in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
heart; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
Interesting.
Would this law apply to visitors and immigrants (legal status various)?
I know that ignorance of a law is not considered to be a valid excuse
for breaking it, but it would be foolish to expect a casual visitor to
the country to know - especially since it seems that a fair number of US
citizens are not aware of it.
By now you've seen CDB's comment and mine that it's only a "should".

I wonder whether the authors of the above suggestions thought about
whether they apply to foreign nationals in the U.S. I think it's
generally considered polite, when one is in a foreign country where
people stand for the national anthem, to join them. I wouldn't
expect the hand-on-heart gesture, though, and I certainly wouldn't
expect a military salute. (In a joint military ceremony with allies,
do military personnel salute the other country's flags?)
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-15 22:33:06 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm. At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner". None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards. The thought never occurred to me.
U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not
in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
heart; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
Interesting.
Would this law apply to visitors and immigrants (legal status various)?
I know that ignorance of a law is not considered to be a valid excuse
for breaking it, but it would be foolish to expect a casual visitor to
the country to know - especially since it seems that a fair number of US
citizens are not aware of it.
By now you've seen CDB's comment and mine that it's only a "should".
I wonder whether the authors of the above suggestions thought about
whether they apply to foreign nationals in the U.S.
...

Incidentally, at graduation and at least sometimes convocation, my
college asks military veterans to stand and be applauded. Very
few faculty members are veterans. I know one who's a veteran of
another country's army, and I wonder what the reaction would be
if he stood. (However, the "service" was much against his will,
and he doesn't even want me to mention it, so he certainly doesn't
stand.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-15 22:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not always
the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm. At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner". None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards. The thought never occurred to me.
U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not
in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
heart; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
Interesting.
Would this law apply to visitors and immigrants (legal status various)?
I know that ignorance of a law is not considered to be a valid excuse
for breaking it, but it would be foolish to expect a casual visitor to
the country to know - especially since it seems that a fair number of US
citizens are not aware of it.
Or to expect that an alien would show respect to a nation's emblem in
any way other than quietly respecting the non-aliens' ritual. (I had
"observing," but that's a near-contranym: watching vs. participating in.)
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-16 02:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not always
the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm. At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner". None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards. The thought never occurred to me.
U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not
in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
heart; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
Interesting.
Would this law apply to visitors and immigrants (legal status various)?
I know that ignorance of a law is not considered to be a valid excuse
for breaking it, but it would be foolish to expect a casual visitor to
the country to know - especially since it seems that a fair number of US
citizens are not aware of it.
Or to expect that an alien would show respect to a nation's emblem in
any way other than quietly respecting the non-aliens' ritual. (I had
"observing," but that's a near-contranym: watching vs. participating in.)
I was pondering on the difference between a visitor showing courtesy in
the face of (what is for them) an alien custom, and being aware that
they should act in accordance with a law - when they might not even
recognise the tune.

P.S. I note what people say about the use of "should" rather than
"shall", but would an aue opinion convince an over zealous policemen?
--
Sam Plusnet
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-16 04:12:59 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
   U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
    (1) when the flag is displayed—
      (A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
      first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the
last
      note;
      (B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present
but not
      in uniform may render the military salute in the manner
provided for
      individuals in uniform; and
      (C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
      attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
      uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
      right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being
over the
      heart; and
    (2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face
toward the
    music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were
displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
Interesting.
Would this law apply to visitors and immigrants (legal status various)?
I know that ignorance of a law is not considered to be a valid excuse
for breaking it, but it would be foolish to expect a casual visitor to
the country to know - especially since it seems that a fair number of US
citizens are not aware of it.
Or to expect that an alien would show respect to a nation's emblem in
any way other than quietly respecting the non-aliens' ritual. (I had
"observing," but that's a near-contranym: watching vs. participating in.)
I was pondering on the difference between a visitor showing courtesy in
the face of (what is for them) an alien custom, and being aware that
they should act in accordance with a law - when they might not even
recognise the tune.
I suspect that just about anyone visiting a foreign country, if they saw
everyone around stand up and know of no reason not to, would stand up.
Post by Sam Plusnet
P.S. I note what people say about the use of "should" rather than
"shall", but would an aue opinion convince an over zealous policemen?
There is, I suppose, no limit to human stupidity, but I've never heard
of anyone arrested for an anthem "violation". No punishment is
prescribed. Flagrant violations of the flag code are daily occurrences
everywhere, and violations of the national-anthem code occur just about
every time it's played or sung--lots of people don't put their hands on
their hearts and lots of men don't take their hats off. That doesn't
even register with the police.
--
Jerry Friedman
Eric Walker
2019-11-16 07:06:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 21:12:59 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:

[...]
Post by Jerry Friedman
There is, I suppose, no limit to human stupidity, but I've never heard
of anyone arrested for an anthem "violation". No punishment is
prescribed. Flagrant violations of the flag code are daily occurrences
everywhere, and violations of the national-anthem code occur just about
every time it's played or sung--lots of people don't put their hands on
their hearts and lots of men don't take their hats off. That doesn't
even register with the police.
Just so. The Code provides no penalties, and so is unenforceable.

For the years in which I was a baseball journalist, I made it my habit,
tongue wll in cheek, to stand in the press box for the anthem and holler
"C'mon, on yer feet all you Commies."
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
RH Draney
2019-11-16 09:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Jerry Friedman
There is, I suppose, no limit to human stupidity, but I've never heard
of anyone arrested for an anthem "violation". No punishment is
prescribed. Flagrant violations of the flag code are daily occurrences
everywhere, and violations of the national-anthem code occur just about
every time it's played or sung--lots of people don't put their hands on
their hearts and lots of men don't take their hats off. That doesn't
even register with the police.
Just so. The Code provides no penalties, and so is unenforceable.
For the years in which I was a baseball journalist, I made it my habit,
tongue wll in cheek, to stand in the press box for the anthem and holler
"C'mon, on yer feet all you Commies."
The Code is enforced by any patriots who happen to be in range...I
remember hearing about a group that viciously turned on an old man, a
war hero as it developed, who had failed to stand when the anthem was
played...they later discovered that his war injuries rendered him unable
to rise from his wheelchair....r
Tony Cooper
2019-11-16 04:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
I know that ignorance of a law is not considered to be a valid excuse
for breaking it, but it would be foolish to expect a casual visitor to
the country to know - especially since it seems that a fair number of US
citizens are not aware of it.
Or to expect that an alien would show respect to a nation's emblem in
any way other than quietly respecting the non-aliens' ritual. (I had
"observing," but that's a near-contranym: watching vs. participating in.)
I was pondering on the difference between a visitor showing courtesy in
the face of (what is for them) an alien custom, and being aware that
they should act in accordance with a law - when they might not even
recognise the tune.
P.S. I note what people say about the use of "should" rather than
"shall", but would an aue opinion convince an over zealous policemen?
To the best of my knowledge, there has never been an arrest, or even
the threat of one, based on failure to observe those laws.

There have been many incidents reported about attempts to enforce the
laws. Most of them are by teachers who insist that students stand or
otherwise observe the law when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in
class. The teachers aren't basing the enforcement on legal grounds,
though. Kids have been kicked out of classes, but not arrested.

The most well-known incident in the US was Colin Kaepernick's kneeling
during the National Anthem at football games. This started a chain
reaction of other (professional) football players doing the same.

Kaepernick was never arrested or - as far as I know - even approached
by the police over this. He has lost his job and no other team has
been willing to sign him.

So, unless you come here and attend grade school functions or try out
for a professional football team you should be safe from police
attention if you ignore the law.

I do want you to know, though, that when we were in the UK in 1969 I
stood along with the rest of the people at the end of the movie, but
did not sing "God Save the Queen"...not out of disrespect, but out of
respect to anyone near enough to hear notes so wrongfully voiced.

That practice was mostly over by 1969, but still done at the London
theater we went to. Can't remember what the movie was, though.
Somewhere near Kensington Gardens, and my wife - seven months pregnant
at the time - wanted to go someone and just sit rather than pub crawl.

We also, on that trip, stood along with the crowd in a pub in Ireland
(ROI) at closing. Something was sung (with great gusto) but I'm not
sure what it was. Probably, "The Soldier's Song".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tony Cooper
2019-11-16 04:18:08 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 23:15:10 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
I know that ignorance of a law is not considered to be a valid excuse
for breaking it, but it would be foolish to expect a casual visitor to
the country to know - especially since it seems that a fair number of US
citizens are not aware of it.
Or to expect that an alien would show respect to a nation's emblem in
any way other than quietly respecting the non-aliens' ritual. (I had
"observing," but that's a near-contranym: watching vs. participating in.)
I was pondering on the difference between a visitor showing courtesy in
the face of (what is for them) an alien custom, and being aware that
they should act in accordance with a law - when they might not even
recognise the tune.
P.S. I note what people say about the use of "should" rather than
"shall", but would an aue opinion convince an over zealous policemen?
To the best of my knowledge, there has never been an arrest, or even
the threat of one, based on failure to observe those laws.
There have been many incidents reported about attempts to enforce the
laws. Most of them are by teachers who insist that students stand or
otherwise observe the law when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in
class. The teachers aren't basing the enforcement on legal grounds,
though. Kids have been kicked out of classes, but not arrested.
The most well-known incident in the US was Colin Kaepernick's kneeling
during the National Anthem at football games. This started a chain
reaction of other (professional) football players doing the same.
Kaepernick was never arrested or - as far as I know - even approached
by the police over this. He has lost his job and no other team has
been willing to sign him.
So, unless you come here and attend grade school functions or try out
for a professional football team you should be safe from police
attention if you ignore the law.
I do want you to know, though, that when we were in the UK in 1969 I
stood along with the rest of the people at the end of the movie, but
did not sing "God Save the Queen"...not out of disrespect, but out of
respect to anyone near enough to hear notes so wrongfully voiced.
That practice was mostly over by 1969, but still done at the London
theater we went to. Can't remember what the movie was, though.
Somewhere near Kensington Gardens, and my wife - seven months pregnant
at the time - wanted to go someone and just sit rather than pub crawl.
^^^somewhere^^^
We also, on that trip, stood along with the crowd in a pub in Ireland
(ROI) at closing. Something was sung (with great gusto) but I'm not
sure what it was. Probably, "The Soldier's Song".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-16 04:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
I know that ignorance of a law is not considered to be a valid excuse
for breaking it, but it would be foolish to expect a casual visitor to
the country to know - especially since it seems that a fair number of US
citizens are not aware of it.
Or to expect that an alien would show respect to a nation's emblem in
any way other than quietly respecting the non-aliens' ritual. (I had
"observing," but that's a near-contranym: watching vs. participating in.)
I was pondering on the difference between a visitor showing courtesy in
the face of (what is for them) an alien custom, and being aware that
they should act in accordance with a law - when they might not even
recognise the tune.
P.S. I note what people say about the use of "should" rather than
"shall", but would an aue opinion convince an over zealous policemen?
To the best of my knowledge, there has never been an arrest, or even
the threat of one, based on failure to observe those laws.
There have been many incidents reported about attempts to enforce the
laws. Most of them are by teachers who insist that students stand or
otherwise observe the law when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in
class. The teachers aren't basing the enforcement on legal grounds,
though. Kids have been kicked out of classes, but not arrested.
The most well-known incident in the US was Colin Kaepernick's kneeling
during the National Anthem at football games. This started a chain
reaction of other (professional) football players doing the same.
Kaepernick was never arrested or - as far as I know - even approached
by the police over this. He has lost his job and no other team has
been willing to sign him.
It was announced Thursday or Friday that Kaepernick was going to
do a workout to show his stuff with reps of quite a few teams
in attendance. The only reaction I've seen is that the NFL might
be trying to protect itself from a lawsuit, so they'll be able to
say, "We gave him a chance, but he didn't impress us with his skills".

bill
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-16 14:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
There have been many incidents reported about attempts to enforce the
laws. Most of them are by teachers who insist that students stand or
otherwise observe the law when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in
class. The teachers aren't basing the enforcement on legal grounds,
though. Kids have been kicked out of classes, but not arrested.
What does that have to do with the Flag Code?
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-16 14:19:37 UTC
Permalink
[behavior during the National Anthem]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
I know that ignorance of a law is not considered to be a valid excuse
for breaking it, but it would be foolish to expect a casual visitor to
the country to know - especially since it seems that a fair number of US
citizens are not aware of it.
Or to expect that an alien would show respect to a nation's emblem in
any way other than quietly respecting the non-aliens' ritual. (I had
"observing," but that's a near-contranym: watching vs. participating in.)
I was pondering on the difference between a visitor showing courtesy in
the face of (what is for them) an alien custom, and being aware that
they should act in accordance with a law - when they might not even
recognise the tune.
P.S. I note what people say about the use of "should" rather than
"shall", but would an aue opinion convince an over zealous policemen?
The "aue opinion" would likely be shared by the trial court judge.

A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?

* Do the UN HQs in Geneva and Vienna, or the EU HQ in Brussels, or did
the League of Nations HQ in Paris, prominently display all the member
nations' flags outside the building?
Paris,
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-16 18:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which requires
(or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags, cheer, or
act in any specific fashion when encountering someone related to the
Monarch.
--
Sam Plusnet
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-11-16 20:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal
Great-Grandchildren or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a
nation's flag is a peculiarly American thing.)* Should that USan be
wildly cheering, or should they simply stand by, watching the
enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which
requires (or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags,
cheer, or act in any specific fashion when encountering someone
related to the Monarch.
Hush, PTD is having a fantasy.

But there is a strict protocol for how one addresses royalty. But I
haven't learnt it, so you'll just have to find it out yersel.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-16 22:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal
Great-Grandchildren or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a
nation's flag is a peculiarly American thing.)* Should that USan be
wildly cheering, or should they simply stand by, watching the
enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which
requires (or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags,
cheer, or act in any specific fashion when encountering someone
related to the Monarch.
Hush, PTD is having a fantasy.
But there is a strict protocol for how one addresses royalty. But I
haven't learnt it, so you'll just have to find it out yersel.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Is it what Sam would recognize as "a law"?

Your country is at the moment in a huge mess, because you have no
definitive Constitution and you've been operating by the seat of
several PM's pants (all unelected oligarchs, appointed by a tiny
coterie of Party insiders) for years.
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-17 01:11:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Your country is at the moment in a huge mess, because you have no
definitive Constitution and you've been operating by the seat of
several PM's pants (all unelected oligarchs, appointed by a tiny
coterie of Party insiders) for years.
Really? Has your written constitution ensured orderly, well regulated
government under your current president?

Motes and beams.
--
Sam Plusnet
David Kleinecke
2019-11-17 01:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Your country is at the moment in a huge mess, because you have no
definitive Constitution and you've been operating by the seat of
several PM's pants (all unelected oligarchs, appointed by a tiny
coterie of Party insiders) for years.
Really? Has your written constitution ensured orderly, well regulated
government under your current president?
Motes and beams.
The problem is that our current president doesn't respect our
constitution and the only remedy that constitution gives for
that problem is slow, clumsy and probably ineffective. It
remains to be seen whether he will respect the constitution
enough to actually leave office when his term is ended.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-17 14:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
The problem is that our current president doesn't respect our
constitution and the only remedy that constitution gives for
that problem is slow, clumsy and probably ineffective. It
remains to be seen whether he will respect the constitution
enough to actually leave office when his term is ended.
He hasn't yet responded to his huge defeat in Louisiana. (He wagered his
"reputation" on the outcome.)

On Friday he added another count to the impeachment: witness tampering.
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-17 19:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by David Kleinecke
The problem is that our current president doesn't respect our
constitution and the only remedy that constitution gives for
that problem is slow, clumsy and probably ineffective. It
remains to be seen whether he will respect the constitution
enough to actually leave office when his term is ended.
He hasn't yet responded to his huge defeat in Louisiana. (He wagered his
"reputation" on the outcome.)
He doesn't need to. He and Trump TV can simply ignore inconvenient
details.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
On Friday he added another count to the impeachment: witness tampering.
Even if he signed a full confession, is there any chance whatsoever that
the Senate would vote for impeachment?
--
Sam Plusnet
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-18 01:30:01 UTC
Permalink
On 11/17/19 3:09 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

[Democrat wins governorship of Louisiana]
The current GOP stance is that Trump should be praised for closing the
gap. Rispone, the losing candidate, was further behind in the polls
before Trump's appearances in Louisiana.
Some credit for the victory of Bel Edwards is being given to the LSU
(college) football team. They beat Alabama 46-41 resulting in happy
Louisianans.
Happy people vote for Democrats?
One former member of the Alabama team tweeted that Trump
was the reason Alabama lost saying: "I’m blaming Trump for this one.
Soon as they showed him at game we had that bad swacky!!" 'Bama
quarterback Tua Tagovailoa fumbled the ball in the red zone
immediately after Trump was introduced at the game.
...

Which would seem to be a reason for Louisianans to vote /for/ Trump's
preferred candidate, but never mind that. What in the name of Partridge
is "swacky"?
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2019-11-18 02:37:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:30:01 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Democrat wins governorship of Louisiana]
The current GOP stance is that Trump should be praised for closing the
gap. Rispone, the losing candidate, was further behind in the polls
before Trump's appearances in Louisiana.
Some credit for the victory of Bel Edwards is being given to the LSU
(college) football team. They beat Alabama 46-41 resulting in happy
Louisianans.
Happy people vote for Democrats?
Yeah, I think so. Bel Edwards was the incumbent. Happy people aren't
interested in change. The Rispone message was gloom and doom if a
Republican wasn't elected.
Post by Jerry Friedman
One former member of the Alabama team tweeted that Trump
was the reason Alabama lost saying: "I’m blaming Trump for this one.
Soon as they showed him at game we had that bad swacky!!" 'Bama
quarterback Tua Tagovailoa fumbled the ball in the red zone
immediately after Trump was introduced at the game.
...
Which would seem to be a reason for Louisianans to vote /for/ Trump's
preferred candidate, but never mind that. What in the name of Partridge
is "swacky"?
Given that the statement was made by former 'Bama running back Mark
Ingram - who is African American - the assumption must be that it's
some word entering the scene as A-A slang. There's also some link to
"swacky" used in the "World of Warcraft" something called "The
Renegades of Penn" games, and athletes of Ingram's age do a lot of
gaming.

I doubt if the Scrabble dictionary allows it, though.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-18 04:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:30:01 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Democrat wins governorship of Louisiana]
The current GOP stance is that Trump should be praised for closing the
gap. Rispone, the losing candidate, was further behind in the polls
before Trump's appearances in Louisiana.
Some credit for the victory of Bel Edwards is being given to the LSU
(college) football team. They beat Alabama 46-41 resulting in happy
Louisianans.
Happy people vote for Democrats?
Yeah, I think so. Bel Edwards was the incumbent. Happy people aren't
interested in change. The Rispone message was gloom and doom if a
Republican wasn't elected.
Ah, it's making more sense now.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
One former member of the Alabama team tweeted that Trump
was the reason Alabama lost saying: "I’m blaming Trump for this one.
Soon as they showed him at game we had that bad swacky!!" 'Bama
quarterback Tua Tagovailoa fumbled the ball in the red zone
immediately after Trump was introduced at the game.
...
Which would seem to be a reason for Louisianans to vote /for/ Trump's
preferred candidate, but never mind that. What in the name of Partridge
is "swacky"?
Given that the statement was made by former 'Bama running back Mark
Ingram - who is African American - the assumption must be that it's
some word entering the scene as A-A slang.
Or some inside reference among Alabama or Baltimore players (not that
those are entirely separate from AAVE), or something we haven't thought of.
Post by Tony Cooper
There's also some link to
"swacky" used in the "World of Warcraft" something called "The
Renegades of Penn" games, and athletes of Ingram's age do a lot of
gaming.
...

'Your search - "world of warcraft" "renegades of Penn" - did not match
any documents.'

I did find that someone has a WoW character named Swacky, though.
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2019-11-18 04:44:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 21:33:41 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:30:01 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Democrat wins governorship of Louisiana]
The current GOP stance is that Trump should be praised for closing the
gap. Rispone, the losing candidate, was further behind in the polls
before Trump's appearances in Louisiana.
Some credit for the victory of Bel Edwards is being given to the LSU
(college) football team. They beat Alabama 46-41 resulting in happy
Louisianans.
Happy people vote for Democrats?
Yeah, I think so. Bel Edwards was the incumbent. Happy people aren't
interested in change. The Rispone message was gloom and doom if a
Republican wasn't elected.
Ah, it's making more sense now.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
One former member of the Alabama team tweeted that Trump
was the reason Alabama lost saying: "I’m blaming Trump for this one.
Soon as they showed him at game we had that bad swacky!!" 'Bama
quarterback Tua Tagovailoa fumbled the ball in the red zone
immediately after Trump was introduced at the game.
...
Which would seem to be a reason for Louisianans to vote /for/ Trump's
preferred candidate, but never mind that. What in the name of Partridge
is "swacky"?
Given that the statement was made by former 'Bama running back Mark
Ingram - who is African American - the assumption must be that it's
some word entering the scene as A-A slang.
Or some inside reference among Alabama or Baltimore players (not that
those are entirely separate from AAVE), or something we haven't thought of.
Post by Tony Cooper
There's also some link to
"swacky" used in the "World of Warcraft" something called "The
Renegades of Penn" games, and athletes of Ingram's age do a lot of
gaming.
...
'Your search - "world of warcraft" "renegades of Penn" - did not match
any documents.'
I did find that someone has a WoW character named Swacky, though.
Believe me, this is *not* in my wheelhouse. I'm just fishing:

https://pern.fandom.com/wiki/Swacky

Swacky was a forester in the Ninth Pass. He was the leader of a group
of men who searched for Thella and her men. He later moved to Paradise
River Hold at Jayge Lilcamp's request. (The Renegades of Pern) Pern,
not Penn.

I'm also considering "is wacky" rendered as "s'wacky>swacky". I've
been using "S'OK" as "Is OK".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Katy Jennison
2019-11-18 08:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:30:01 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Democrat wins governorship of Louisiana]
The current GOP stance is that Trump should be praised for closing the
gap.  Rispone, the losing candidate, was further behind in the polls
before Trump's appearances in Louisiana.
Some credit for the victory of Bel Edwards is being given to the LSU
(college) football team.  They beat Alabama 46-41 resulting in happy
Louisianans.
Happy people vote for Democrats?
Yeah, I think so.  Bel Edwards was the incumbent.  Happy people aren't
interested in change.  The Rispone message was gloom and doom if a
Republican wasn't elected.
Ah, it's making more sense now.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
One former member of the Alabama team tweeted that Trump
was the reason Alabama lost saying:  "I’m blaming Trump for this one.
Soon as they showed him at game we had that bad swacky!!"  'Bama
quarterback Tua Tagovailoa fumbled the ball in the red zone
immediately after Trump was introduced at the game.
...
Which would seem to be a reason for Louisianans to vote /for/ Trump's
preferred candidate, but never mind that.  What in the name of Partridge
is "swacky"?
Given that the statement was made by former 'Bama running back Mark
Ingram - who is African American - the assumption must be that it's
some word entering the scene as A-A slang.
Or some inside reference among Alabama or Baltimore players (not that
those are entirely separate from AAVE), or something we haven't thought of.
Post by Tony Cooper
There's also some link to
"swacky" used in the "World of Warcraft" something called "The
Renegades of Penn" games, and athletes of Ingram's age do a lot of
gaming.
...
'Your search - "world of warcraft" "renegades of Penn" - did not match
any documents.'
Suspect that might be 'Renegades of Pern', not 'Penn'. Not that it
appears to help much.
--
Katy Jennison
Peter Moylan
2019-11-18 13:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:30:01 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Democrat wins governorship of Louisiana]
The current GOP stance is that Trump should be praised for
closing the gap. Rispone, the losing candidate, was further
behind in the polls before Trump's appearances in Louisiana.
Some credit for the victory of Bel Edwards is being given to
the LSU (college) football team. They beat Alabama 46-41
resulting in happy Louisianans.
Happy people vote for Democrats?
Yeah, I think so. Bel Edwards was the incumbent. Happy people
aren't interested in change. The Rispone message was gloom and
doom if a Republican wasn't elected.
Ah, it's making more sense now.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
One former member of the Alabama team tweeted that Trump was
the reason Alabama lost saying: "I’m blaming Trump for this
one. Soon as they showed him at game we had that bad
swacky!!" 'Bama quarterback Tua Tagovailoa fumbled the ball
in the red zone immediately after Trump was introduced at the
game.
...
Which would seem to be a reason for Louisianans to vote /for/
Trump's preferred candidate, but never mind that. What in the
name of Partridge is "swacky"?
Given that the statement was made by former 'Bama running back
Mark Ingram - who is African American - the assumption must be
that it's some word entering the scene as A-A slang.
Or some inside reference among Alabama or Baltimore players (not
that those are entirely separate from AAVE), or something we
haven't thought of.
Post by Tony Cooper
There's also some link to "swacky" used in the "World of
Warcraft" something called "The Renegades of Penn" games, and
athletes of Ingram's age do a lot of gaming.
...
'Your search - "world of warcraft" "renegades of Penn" - did not
match any documents.'
Suspect that might be 'Renegades of Pern', not 'Penn'. Not that it
appears to help much.
All I know about Pern is that it has lots of dragons. But I don't think
that Anne McCaffrey ever used the word "swacky".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Katy Jennison
2019-11-18 14:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:30:01 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Democrat wins governorship of Louisiana]
The current GOP stance is that Trump should be praised for
closing the gap.  Rispone, the losing candidate, was further
behind in the polls before Trump's appearances in Louisiana.
Some credit for the victory of Bel Edwards is being given to
the LSU (college) football team.  They beat Alabama 46-41
resulting in happy Louisianans.
Happy people vote for Democrats?
Yeah, I think so.  Bel Edwards was the incumbent.  Happy people
aren't interested in change.  The Rispone message was gloom and
doom if a Republican wasn't elected.
Ah, it's making more sense now.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
One former member of the Alabama team tweeted that Trump was
the reason Alabama lost saying:  "I’m blaming Trump for this
one. Soon as they showed him at game we had that bad
swacky!!"  'Bama quarterback Tua Tagovailoa fumbled the ball
in the red zone immediately after Trump was introduced at the
game.
...
Which would seem to be a reason for Louisianans to vote /for/
Trump's preferred candidate, but never mind that.  What in the
name of Partridge is "swacky"?
Given that the statement was made by former 'Bama running back
Mark Ingram - who is African American - the assumption must be
that it's some word entering the scene as A-A slang.
Or some inside reference among Alabama or Baltimore players (not
that those are entirely separate from AAVE), or something we
haven't thought of.
Post by Tony Cooper
There's also some link to "swacky" used in the "World of
Warcraft" something called "The Renegades of Penn" games, and
athletes of Ingram's age do a lot of gaming.
...
'Your search - "world of warcraft" "renegades of Penn" - did not
match any documents.'
Suspect that might be 'Renegades of Pern', not 'Penn'.  Not that it
appears to help much.
All I know about Pern is that it has lots of dragons. But I don't think
that Anne McCaffrey ever used the word "swacky".
Nor do I, but there might be a game based on the title. (But if there
is, I haven't found it.)
--
Katy Jennison
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-18 14:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 18:30:01 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Democrat wins governorship of Louisiana]
The current GOP stance is that Trump should be praised for
closing the gap.  Rispone, the losing candidate, was further
behind in the polls before Trump's appearances in Louisiana.
Some credit for the victory of Bel Edwards is being given to
the LSU (college) football team.  They beat Alabama 46-41
resulting in happy Louisianans.
Happy people vote for Democrats?
Yeah, I think so.  Bel Edwards was the incumbent.  Happy people
aren't interested in change.  The Rispone message was gloom and
doom if a Republican wasn't elected.
Ah, it's making more sense now.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
One former member of the Alabama team tweeted that Trump was
the reason Alabama lost saying:  "I’m blaming Trump for this
one. Soon as they showed him at game we had that bad
swacky!!"  'Bama quarterback Tua Tagovailoa fumbled the ball
in the red zone immediately after Trump was introduced at the
game.
...
Which would seem to be a reason for Louisianans to vote /for/
Trump's preferred candidate, but never mind that.  What in the
name of Partridge is "swacky"?
Given that the statement was made by former 'Bama running back
Mark Ingram - who is African American - the assumption must be
that it's some word entering the scene as A-A slang.
Or some inside reference among Alabama or Baltimore players (not
that those are entirely separate from AAVE), or something we
haven't thought of.
Post by Tony Cooper
There's also some link to "swacky" used in the "World of
Warcraft" something called "The Renegades of Penn" games, and
athletes of Ingram's age do a lot of gaming.
...
'Your search - "world of warcraft" "renegades of Penn" - did not
match any documents.'
Suspect that might be 'Renegades of Pern', not 'Penn'.  Not that it
appears to help much.
All I know about Pern is that it has lots of dragons. But I don't think
that Anne McCaffrey ever used the word "swacky".
As Tony said after I asked, she named a character Swacky.
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
2019-11-18 13:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
[Democrat wins governorship of Louisiana]
The current GOP stance is that Trump should be praised for
closing the gap. Rispone, the losing candidate, was further
behind in the polls before Trump's appearances in Louisiana.
Some credit for the victory of Bel Edwards is being given to
the LSU (college) football team. They beat Alabama 46-41
resulting in happy Louisianans.
Happy people vote for Democrats?
Yeah, I think so. Bel Edwards was the incumbent. Happy people
aren't interested in change. The Rispone message was gloom and
doom if a Republican wasn't elected.
Ah, it's making more sense now.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Jerry Friedman
One former member of the Alabama team tweeted that Trump was
the reason Alabama lost saying: "I’m blaming Trump for this
one. Soon as they showed him at game we had that bad swacky!!"
'Bama quarterback Tua Tagovailoa fumbled the ball in the red
zone immediately after Trump was introduced at the game.
...
Which would seem to be a reason for Louisianans to vote /for/
Trump's preferred candidate, but never mind that. What in the
name of Partridge is "swacky"?
Given that the statement was made by former 'Bama running back Mark
Ingram - who is African American - the assumption must be that it's
some word entering the scene as A-A slang.
Or some inside reference among Alabama or Baltimore players (not
that those are entirely separate from AAVE), or something we haven't
thought of.
Post by Tony Cooper
There's also some link to "swacky" used in the "World of Warcraft"
something called "The Renegades of Penn" games, and athletes of
Ingram's age do a lot of gaming.
...
'Your search - "world of warcraft" "renegades of Penn" - did not
match any documents.'
I did find that someone has a WoW character named Swacky, though.
"Swack" can mean "cannabis", says the net. A clumsy mistake? "Did I do
that? I must have been stoned."

Or, in a football context, there was Bill Swiacki, a football player and
coach with a record of success who shot himself to death in retirement
while cleaning his gun. He was 56.

Just saying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Swiacki
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-17 14:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Your country is at the moment in a huge mess, because you have no
definitive Constitution and you've been operating by the seat of
several PM's pants (all unelected oligarchs, appointed by a tiny
coterie of Party insiders) for years.
Really? Has your written constitution ensured orderly, well regulated
government under your current president?
Yes -- and has done for 230 years now. On Wednesday and Friday I watched
it doing so (on the radio) in considerable detail. Tuesday there'll be
more. Presiding officers are not reduced to screaming "Order! Order!"
every few seconds.
Post by Sam Plusnet
Motes and beams.
When's the last time you ousted a rogue prime minister by orderly means?
Your way of doing it seems to be to replace one nonentity with another
from the same clique.
Tony Cooper
2019-11-17 01:36:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 14:20:55 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal
Great-Grandchildren or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a
nation's flag is a peculiarly American thing.)* Should that USan be
wildly cheering, or should they simply stand by, watching the
enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which
requires (or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags,
cheer, or act in any specific fashion when encountering someone
related to the Monarch.
Hush, PTD is having a fantasy.
But there is a strict protocol for how one addresses royalty. But I
haven't learnt it, so you'll just have to find it out yersel.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Is it what Sam would recognize as "a law"?
Your country is at the moment in a huge mess, because you have no
definitive Constitution and you've been operating by the seat of
several PM's pants (all unelected oligarchs, appointed by a tiny
coterie of Party insiders) for years.
Is the image of "rocks" and "glass houses" popping up in other
reader's minds?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-16 22:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which requires
(or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags, cheer, or
act in any specific fashion when encountering someone related to the
Monarch.
Did I say anything about "laws"?

Moreover, you deleted the footnote, which asked an interesting question.
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-17 01:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which requires
(or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags, cheer, or
act in any specific fashion when encountering someone related to the
Monarch.
Did I say anything about "laws"?
As we were following up on Eric Walker's post which referred to

"It seems it is not only custom but law:

U.S. Code § 301. National anthem" etc etc.


And you talked of "A UK analogy" then yes. My response that there are
no laws in the UK is perfectly on point.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Moreover, you deleted the footnote, which asked an interesting question.
I didn't find it very interesting.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-17 14:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which requires
(or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags, cheer, or
act in any specific fashion when encountering someone related to the
Monarch.
Did I say anything about "laws"?
As we were following up on Eric Walker's post which referred to
U.S. Code § 301. National anthem" etc etc.
Which does not mention foreign nationals.
Post by Sam Plusnet
And you talked of "A UK analogy" then yes. My response that there are
no laws in the UK is perfectly on point.
You might want to look in on the meaning of "analogy." (As contrasted
with e.g. "parallel" or "equivalent.")
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Moreover, you deleted the footnote, which asked an interesting question.
I didn't find it very interesting.
That's your failing.
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-17 19:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which requires
(or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags, cheer, or
act in any specific fashion when encountering someone related to the
Monarch.
Did I say anything about "laws"?
As we were following up on Eric Walker's post which referred to
U.S. Code § 301. National anthem" etc etc.
Which does not mention foreign nationals.
Indeed. That is why I asked if visitors would be affected by this law.
--
Sam Plusnet
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-17 06:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which
requires (or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags,
cheer, or act in any specific fashion when encountering someone related
to the Monarch.
or even the Monarch herself.
--
athel
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-17 06:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which
requires (or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags,
cheer, or act in any specific fashion when encountering someone related
to the Monarch.
or even the Monarch herself.
I'm used to seeing the Queen capitalized, but haven't noticed
"the monarch" with a capital M in mostly Canadian news media.

Is that standard in the UK?

bill
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-17 07:28:28 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-8, Athel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which
requires (or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags,
cheer, or act in any specific fashion when encountering someone related
to the Monarch.
or even the Monarch herself.
I'm used to seeing the Queen capitalized, but haven't noticed
"the monarch" with a capital M in mostly Canadian news media.
Is that standard in the UK?
Not as far as I know. I was just following the way Sam put it.
--
athel
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-17 08:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-8, Athel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which
requires (or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags,
cheer, or act in any specific fashion when encountering someone related
to the Monarch.
or even the Monarch herself.
I'm used to seeing the Queen capitalized, but haven't noticed
"the monarch" with a capital M in mostly Canadian news media.
Is that standard in the UK?
Not as far as I know. I was just following the way Sam put it.
Thank you.

Hey, Sam!

Is "the Monarch" standard where you are, or are you an uncontrite
monarchist?

bill
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-17 19:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-8, Athel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which
requires (or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags,
cheer, or act in any specific fashion when encountering someone related
to the Monarch.
or even the Monarch herself.
I'm used to seeing the Queen capitalized, but haven't noticed
"the monarch" with a capital M in mostly Canadian news media.
Is that standard in the UK?
Not as far as I know. I was just following the way Sam put it.
Thank you.
Hey, Sam!
Is "the Monarch" standard where you are, or are you an uncontrite
monarchist?
As best I can recall, I briefly hovered over the 'Caps' key because I
was entirely uncertain if I should use it or not.

I don't have strong feelings on the topic of constitutional monarchy.
There are certainly worse systems.
--
Sam Plusnet
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-17 22:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 10:51:58 PM UTC-8, Athel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?
IANAL, but as far as I am aware there is no law in the UK which
requires (or even strongly recommends) that people should wave flags,
cheer, or act in any specific fashion when encountering someone related
to the Monarch.
or even the Monarch herself.
I'm used to seeing the Queen capitalized, but haven't noticed
"the monarch" with a capital M in mostly Canadian news media.
Is that standard in the UK?
Not as far as I know. I was just following the way Sam put it.
Thank you.
Hey, Sam!
Is "the Monarch" standard where you are, or are you an uncontrite
monarchist?
As best I can recall, I briefly hovered over the 'Caps' key because I
was entirely uncertain if I should use it or not.
I don't have strong feelings on the topic of constitutional monarchy.
There are certainly worse systems.
The royals have some entertainment value. In a good year, they're
much more fun than your average TV soap opera.

bill
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-18 00:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Sam Plusnet
I don't have strong feelings on the topic of constitutional monarchy.
There are certainly worse systems.
The royals have some entertainment value. In a good year, they're
much more fun than your average TV soap opera.
That's good to know. I avoid both.
--
Sam Plusnet
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-11-18 09:20:53 UTC
Permalink
[M][m]onarchy
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Hey, Sam!
Is "the Monarch" standard where you are, or are you an uncontrite
monarchist?
As best I can recall, I briefly hovered over the 'Caps' key because I
was entirely uncertain if I should use it or not.
I don't have strong feelings on the topic of constitutional monarchy.
There are certainly worse systems.
Careful, your knighthood may have been in jeopardy for a moment!
Try buttering up Prince Edward, he's not got so many friends ATM.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-11-16 21:40:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 06:19:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[behavior during the National Anthem]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
I know that ignorance of a law is not considered to be a valid excuse
for breaking it, but it would be foolish to expect a casual visitor to
the country to know - especially since it seems that a fair number of US
citizens are not aware of it.
Or to expect that an alien would show respect to a nation's emblem in
any way other than quietly respecting the non-aliens' ritual. (I had
"observing," but that's a near-contranym: watching vs. participating in.)
I was pondering on the difference between a visitor showing courtesy in
the face of (what is for them) an alien custom, and being aware that
they should act in accordance with a law - when they might not even
recognise the tune.
P.S. I note what people say about the use of "should" rather than
"shall", but would an aue opinion convince an over zealous policemen?
The "aue opinion" would likely be shared by the trial court judge.
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?
Either, or something in between. It is a matter of personal chioce.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
* Do the UN HQs in Geneva and Vienna, or the EU HQ in Brussels, or did
the League of Nations HQ in Paris, prominently display all the member
nations' flags outside the building?
Paris,
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-16 22:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 06:19:37 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A UK analogy might be if a USan happened to be in London during some
great Royal moment involving a procession and all those fancy horses
and carriages and whatnot, and happened to be in a crowd that was
going wild and swooning over the sight of the Royal Great-Grandchildren
or whatever. (I recognize that respect for a nation's flag is a peculiarly
American thing.)* Should that USan be wildly cheering, or should they
simply stand by, watching the enthusiasm of the crowd?
Either, or something in between. It is a matter of personal chioce.
"Modified rapture"? I don't see myself mustering such for a couple of
infants and a couple of toddlers.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
* Do the UN HQs in Geneva and Vienna, or the EU HQ in Brussels, or did
the League of Nations HQ in Paris, prominently display all the member
nations' flags outside the building?
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-15 22:56:08 UTC
Permalink
I was startled to read today that Brits, and presumably other non-US
citizens, can be deported from the US and denied subsequent entry if
they're found smoking cannabis, even in those states where smoking
cannabis is legal. That is, however legal it may be in those particular
states, it's still a federal, deportable, offence.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/15/britons-who-legally-smoke-cannabis-in-the-us-risk-being-deported
It's a Federal offense for non-aliens, too, but the relevant authorities
have chosen not to enforce the Federal law in such states. There are,
however, border checks for those leaving some at least of the "legal"
states, who they fear may have stocked up on the stuff to sell where
they mayn't.
GordonD
2019-11-16 20:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not always
the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm. At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner". None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards. The thought never occurred to me.
U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
(1) when the flag is displayed—
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not
in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
heart; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
It says "should" not "must" so my understanding is that it's desirable
but not compulsory. Would someone be arrested for ignoring that? What
about non-US citizens?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
GordonD
2019-11-16 20:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by GordonD
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world.  The rules are not always
the same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you
keep it on?  Inquiring minds want to know...
Hm.  At my college's last quite a few graduations, a group of veterans
has carried a U.S. flag onto the stage and someone has sung "The
Star-spangled Banner".  None or almost none of us faculty members have
removed their mortarboards.  The thought never occurred to me.
  U.S. Code § 301. National anthem
(a) Designation.—The composition consisting of the words and music known
as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—
   (1) when the flag is displayed—
     (A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the
     first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last
     note;
     (B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not
     in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for
     individuals in uniform; and
     (C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at
     attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in
     uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their
     right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the
     heart; and
   (2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the
   music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were
displayed.
So US 301 (b)(1)(B) says "men not in uniform, if applicable, should
remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left
shoulder, the hand being over the heart..."
(One has to presume that the "if applicable" means "if they are wearing
headdress".)
It says "should" not "must" so my understanding is that it's desirable
but not compulsory. Would someone be arrested for ignoring that? What
about non-US citizens?
Never mind, I posted this then found the point had been raised and
answered further down, following another thread drift.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-14 17:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of rules
about hats.
Everyone lives in his or her private world. The rules are not always the
same from world to to world.
If you are wearing a hat when the National Anthem is played, do you keep
it on? Inquiring minds want to know...
I don't recall an instance when I was wearing a hat when the anthem
was played. But of course, I would take it off if it was a public event.

Other hand, I hear the Canadian and/or U.S. anthem mainly when I'm
about to watch a sporting event on television. I confess that I
never get up from the couch and stand at attention on such occasions.

bill
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-11-14 11:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to
misquote Paul McCartney.
T<he religious sect commonly called "Quakers" is formally The
Religious Society of Friends. Among their customs is that of not
removing one's hat when it would otherwise be considered proper
manners.
"In the UK, the acronym STEP or PEST is used (peace, equality,
simplicity and truth). In his book Quaker Speak, British Friend
Alastair Heron, lists the following ways in which British Friends
testify to God:[113] Opposition to betting and gambling, capital
punishment, conscription, hat honour (the largely historical practice
of dipping one's hat toward social superiors), oaths, slavery, times
and seasons, tithing and promotion of integrity (or truth), peace,
penal reform, plain language, relief of suffering, simplicity, social
order, Sunday observance, sustainability, temperance and moderation."
In one of the Nero Wolfe novels, Archie comes in from outdoors and
proceeds to the office without removing his hat. Wolfe looks up and
says coldly "Greetings, Friend Goodwin."
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
AIUI, caps are to be worn backwards.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-14 11:17:40 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
AIUI, caps are to be worn backwards.
"We're mean and we're turf and we're mean and we're turf
And we're mean and we're turf and we're mean and we're turf
And me an' my friends are gonna walk towards ya
With our hats on backwards in a menacing way, YO!"

-- Terry Pratchett
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-14 19:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by b***@shaw.ca
The world I live in circa 2019 in does not appear to have a lot of
rules about hats.
AIUI, caps are to be worn backwards.
"We're mean and we're turf and we're mean and we're turf
And we're mean and we're turf and we're mean and we're turf
And me an' my friends are gonna walk towards ya
With our hats on backwards in a menacing way, YO!"
 -- Terry Pratchett
How did you know what I was reading (roughly) 20 minutes ago?

I suspect the references to Blert Wheedown - the author of a guitar
primer - may not be understood by people who were not UK residents in
the 1950s and 60s.
--
Sam Plusnet
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-14 14:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to misquote
Paul McCartney.
T<he religious sect commonly called "Quakers" is formally The Religious
Society of Friends. Among their customs is that of not removing one's
hat when it would otherwise be considered proper manners.
"In the UK, the acronym STEP or PEST is used (peace, equality, simplicity
and truth). In his book Quaker Speak, British Friend Alastair Heron,
lists the following ways in which British Friends testify to God:[113]
Opposition to betting and gambling, capital punishment, conscription, hat
honour (the largely historical practice of dipping one's hat toward
social superiors), oaths, slavery, times and seasons, tithing and
promotion of integrity (or truth), peace, penal reform, plain language,
relief of suffering, simplicity, social order, Sunday observance,
sustainability, temperance and moderation."
...

That makes me wonder whether they're opposed to or in favor of times and
seasons.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2019-11-15 04:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to misquote
Paul McCartney.
T<he religious sect commonly called "Quakers" is formally The Religious
Society of Friends. Among their customs is that of not removing one's
hat when it would otherwise be considered proper manners.
"In the UK, the acronym STEP or PEST is used (peace, equality, simplicity
and truth). In his book Quaker Speak, British Friend Alastair Heron,
lists the following ways in which British Friends testify to God:[113]
Opposition to betting and gambling, capital punishment, conscription, hat
honour (the largely historical practice of dipping one's hat toward
social superiors), oaths, slavery, times and seasons, tithing and
promotion of integrity (or truth), peace, penal reform, plain language,
relief of suffering, simplicity, social order, Sunday observance,
sustainability, temperance and moderation."
...
That makes me wonder whether they're opposed to or in favor of times and
seasons.
It's all very confusing. I couldn't work out why they were against
"tithing and promotion of integrity".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-15 17:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to misquote
Paul McCartney.
T<he religious sect commonly called "Quakers" is formally The Religious
Society of Friends.  Among their customs is that of not removing one's
hat when it would otherwise be considered proper manners.
"In the UK, the acronym STEP or PEST is used (peace, equality, simplicity
and truth). In his book Quaker Speak, British Friend Alastair Heron,
lists the following ways in which British Friends testify to God:[113]
Opposition to betting and gambling, capital punishment, conscription, hat
honour (the largely historical practice of dipping one's hat toward
social superiors), oaths, slavery, times and seasons, tithing and
promotion of integrity (or truth), peace, penal reform, plain language,
relief of suffering, simplicity, social order, Sunday observance,
sustainability, temperance and moderation."
...
That makes me wonder whether they're opposed to or in favor of times and
seasons.
It's all very confusing. I couldn't work out why they were against
"tithing and promotion of integrity".
Paying 10% of your income to a church you have rejected seems
unreasonable.
I wonder if the "promotion of integrity" refers to the swearing of an
oath to tell the truth - since one should always do this anyway.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter Moylan
2019-11-16 00:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
"In the UK, the acronym STEP or PEST is used (peace, equality,
simplicity and truth). In his book Quaker Speak, British
Friend Alastair Heron, lists the following ways in which
British Friends testify to God:[113] Opposition to betting and
gambling, capital punishment, conscription, hat honour (the
largely historical practice of dipping one's hat toward social
superiors), oaths, slavery, times and seasons, tithing and
promotion of integrity (or truth), peace, penal reform, plain
language, relief of suffering, simplicity, social order, Sunday
observance, sustainability, temperance and moderation."
...
That makes me wonder whether they're opposed to or in favor of
times and seasons.
It's all very confusing. I couldn't work out why they were against
"tithing and promotion of integrity".
Paying 10% of your income to a church you have rejected seems
unreasonable. I wonder if the "promotion of integrity" refers to the
swearing of an oath to tell the truth - since one should always do
this anyway.
There's a union-busting bill about to come before Australia's parliament
that is labelled "Ensuring Integrity". Many people have commented that
if the government was serious about ensuring integrity it would drop its
opposition to the establishment of an anti-corruption commission.

Giving a misleading title to legislation comes naturally to a government
whose ministers routinely lie about anything and everything. I know it's
traditional for politicians to lie, but it seems to have become worse
since Trump started giving the example.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Quinn C
2019-11-18 15:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to misquote
Paul McCartney.
T<he religious sect commonly called "Quakers" is formally The Religious
Society of Friends. Among their customs is that of not removing one's
hat when it would otherwise be considered proper manners.
"In the UK, the acronym STEP or PEST is used (peace, equality, simplicity
and truth). In his book Quaker Speak, British Friend Alastair Heron,
lists the following ways in which British Friends testify to God:[113]
Opposition to betting and gambling, capital punishment, conscription, hat
honour (the largely historical practice of dipping one's hat toward
social superiors), oaths, slavery, times and seasons, tithing and
promotion of integrity (or truth), peace, penal reform, plain language,
relief of suffering, simplicity, social order, Sunday observance,
sustainability, temperance and moderation."
...
That makes me wonder whether they're opposed to or in favor of times and
seasons.
It's all very confusing. I couldn't work out why they were against
"tithing and promotion of integrity".
Thanks - so it's not only not being a native speaker.

That's what you get from the irrational fear of the semicolon. Maybe
even better the period, in this case.
--
Ice hockey is a form of disorderly conduct
in which the score is kept.
-- Doug Larson
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-18 17:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
T<he religious sect commonly called "Quakers" is formally The Religious
Society of Friends. Among their customs is that of not removing one's
hat when it would otherwise be considered proper manners.
"In the UK, the acronym STEP or PEST is used (peace, equality, simplicity
and truth). In his book Quaker Speak, British Friend Alastair Heron,
lists the following ways in which British Friends testify to God:[113]
Opposition to betting and gambling, capital punishment, conscription, hat
honour (the largely historical practice of dipping one's hat toward
social superiors), oaths, slavery, times and seasons, tithing and
promotion of integrity (or truth), peace, penal reform, plain language,
relief of suffering, simplicity, social order, Sunday observance,
sustainability, temperance and moderation."
...
That makes me wonder whether they're opposed to or in favor of times and
seasons.
It's all very confusing. I couldn't work out why they were against
"tithing and promotion of integrity".
Thanks - so it's not only not being a native speaker.
That's what you get from the irrational fear of the semicolon. Maybe
even better the period, in this case.
But still, where is it supposed to go? Are they for or against "times
and seasons"?

(Note that it was Eric "Prescriptivist" Walker who promoted this passage.)
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-14 14:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Peter T. Daniels
You are not one of your friends.
We are all friends and I am one of them.
So you keep your hat on indoors?
I don't understand that Eric.
I don't think PTD would say "You are not one of your family"?
Of course he wouldn't.
Post by Spains Harden
The same rule holds for "friends"; "all friends together" to
misquote Paul McCartney.
?

[Foiled twice by the "Google Posting Limit," so this is long delayed]
Snidely
2019-11-13 09:41:10 UTC
Permalink
Peter T. Daniels suggested that ...
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know about the the following sentence.
I didn't know why he was home instead of Mom, but I was young and the only
one of my friends who had their dad around.
I think the sentence means that my friends did not have their dad around,
but only I had my dad around at home.
I wonder what the relative pronoun "who" refers to, "the only one" or "my
firends."
If it refers to "the only one", why "their" is used in who had their dad
around? If it refers to "my friends", I think it means that my friends had
their dad around. I need your help.
You say that you are one of your friends.
No good.
Friends are a group aren't they? You can be one of a group - I can be
one of my family.
You are not one of your friends.
That's one of the problems we have in this world. We should each be
friends with ourselves, but often we're enemies.

/dps
--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Loading...