I am, of course, diligently following the news stories out of the UK.
I was greatly relieved to read that provision has been made for the
future of the Queen's two corgis, her dorgi, and her cocker spaniel.
They will, as I understand it, be relocated to the Royal Lodge at
Windsor to live in the grace and favour residence with Prince Andrew
and Sarah Ferguson.

I would have thought that the dogs would have been entrusted to
Princess Anne as she is the one more thought of as an animal lover
than Andrew or Fergie. But, she was convicted of a criminal offence
in 2002 under the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 and her copybook has been
blotted dog-wise.

I have always wondered who followed the Queen when she was walking her
dogs and picked up after the dogs. I have never seen a photograph of
the Queen carrying a bag, or bags, to be used for that purpose so I
assume someone else - just out of camera range - was tasked with that.
Is that person a designated member of the Royal Household, and - if so
- is there a title involved? The Queen's Equerry of Excretion
perhaps? The word "equerry" comes from the French écurie (stable) and
is historically a senior attendant with responsibilities for the
horses of a person of rank and both dogs and horses require a fouling
follower.

Will the person assigned to follow the Queen's dogs now be made
redundant or will he (or she) go with the dogs to Andrew and Sarah's?

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 11/09/2022 22:16, Tony Cooper wrote:
> I am, of course, diligently following the news stories out of the UK.
> I was greatly relieved to read that provision has been made for the
> future of the Queen's two corgis, her dorgi, and her cocker spaniel.
> They will, as I understand it, be relocated to the Royal Lodge at
> Windsor to live in the grace and favour residence with Prince Andrew
> and Sarah Ferguson.
>
> I would have thought that the dogs would have been entrusted to
> Princess Anne as she is the one more thought of as an animal lover
> than Andrew or Fergie. But, she was convicted of a criminal offence
> in 2002 under the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 and her copybook has been
> blotted dog-wise.
>
> I have always wondered who followed the Queen when she was walking her
> dogs and picked up after the dogs. I have never seen a photograph of
> the Queen carrying a bag, or bags, to be used for that purpose so I
> assume someone else - just out of camera range - was tasked with that.
> Is that person a designated member of the Royal Household, and - if so
> - is there a title involved? The Queen's Equerry of Excretion
> perhaps? The word "equerry" comes from the French écurie (stable) and
> is historically a senior attendant with responsibilities for the
> horses of a person of rank and both dogs and horses require a fouling
> follower.
>
> Will the person assigned to follow the Queen's dogs now be made
> redundant or will he (or she) go with the dogs to Andrew and Sarah's?

Perhaps these operatives moonlight.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/after_the_Lord_Mayor%27s_show

After all, the Lord Mayor's Show only happens once a year, so they must
have plenty of spare time.

On 2022-09-11 15:16, Tony Cooper wrote:
> I am, of course, diligently following the news stories out of the UK.
> I was greatly relieved to read that provision has been made for the
> future of the Queen's two corgis, her dorgi, and her cocker spaniel.
> They will, as I understand it, be relocated to the Royal Lodge at
> Windsor to live in the grace and favour residence with Prince Andrew
> and Sarah Ferguson.
>
> I would have thought that the dogs would have been entrusted to
> Princess Anne as she is the one more thought of as an animal lover
> than Andrew or Fergie. But, she was convicted of a criminal offence
> in 2002 under the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 and her copybook has been
> blotted dog-wise.
>
> I have always wondered who followed the Queen when she was walking her
> dogs and picked up after the dogs. I have never seen a photograph of
> the Queen carrying a bag, or bags, to be used for that purpose so I
> assume someone else - just out of camera range - was tasked with that.
> Is that person a designated member of the Royal Household, and - if so
> - is there a title involved? The Queen's Equerry of Excretion
> perhaps? The word "equerry" comes from the French écurie (stable) and
> is historically a senior attendant with responsibilities for the
> horses of a person of rank and both dogs and horses require a fouling
> follower.

Perhaps that would be the Chancellor of the Excrement Checker.

> Will the person assigned to follow the Queen's dogs now be made
> redundant or will he (or she) go with the dogs to Andrew and Sarah's?

--
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them
are stupider than that.

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes:
>Perhaps these operatives moonlight.

In the third episode of the TV series "House of the Dragon",
the King is examining animals droppings taking them into his
hands. Especially for this he took off his gloves.

In article <orgshhh3nq18rev00v1ksj7at6tvbbi2k2@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am, of course, diligently following the news stories out of the UK.
> I was greatly relieved to read that provision has been made for the
> future of the Queen's two corgis, her dorgi, and her cocker spaniel.
> They will, as I understand it, be relocated to the Royal Lodge at
> Windsor to live in the grace and favour residence with Prince Andrew
> and Sarah Ferguson.

> I would have thought that the dogs would have been entrusted to
> Princess Anne as she is the one more thought of as an animal lover
> than Andrew or Fergie. But, she was convicted of a criminal offence
> in 2002 under the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 and her copybook has been
> blotted dog-wise.

> I have always wondered who followed the Queen when she was walking her
> dogs and picked up after the dogs. I have never seen a photograph of
> the Queen carrying a bag, or bags, to be used for that purpose so I
> assume someone else - just out of camera range - was tasked with that.
> Is that person a designated member of the Royal Household, and - if so
> - is there a title involved? The Queen's Equerry of Excretion
> perhaps? The word "equerry" comes from the French écurie (stable) and
> is historically a senior attendant with responsibilities for the
> horses of a person of rank and both dogs and horses require a fouling
> follower.

> Will the person assigned to follow the Queen's dogs now be made
> redundant or will he (or she) go with the dogs to Andrew and Sarah's?

My memory of the corgis is many years old. As seen of BBC news. The Queen's
plane arrrived at Aberdeen airport the steps were put up to the door and a
herd of corgis dashed down and got straight into the waiting car. The Queen
followed and, on getting to the car, was heard to say "That's my seat!".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Le 11/09/2022 à 22:16, Tony Cooper a écrit :
>
> I am, of course, diligently following the news stories out of the UK. [...]

Good for you. I'm mostly avoiding the news channels myself.

> I have always wondered who followed the Queen when she was walking her
> dogs and picked up after the dogs. I have never seen a photograph of
> the Queen carrying a bag, or bags, to be used for that purpose so I
> assume someone else - just out of camera range - was tasked with that.
> Is that person a designated member of the Royal Household, and - if so
> - is there a title involved? The Queen's Equerry of Excretion
> perhaps? The word "equerry" comes from the French écurie (stable) and
> is historically a senior attendant with responsibilities for the
> horses of a person of rank and both dogs and horses require a fouling
> follower. [...]

There may well be a special position and livery for someone assigned to
poo picking - or perhaps the task falls within the job description of a
maid of all work.

I don't think the Queen would do it, since the person who picks up after
a dog is clearly the dog's servant.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 17:16:18 -0400
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am, of course, diligently following the news stories out of the UK.

TLDNR there's only 1 thing happening.
We're going to London on Monday for the first time in 5 years.
Bad timing or what?

> I was greatly relieved to read that provision has been made for the
> future of the Queen's two corgis, her dorgi, and her cocker spaniel.
> They will, as I understand it, be relocated to the Royal Lodge at
> Windsor to live in the grace and favour residence with Prince Andrew
> and Sarah Ferguson.
>
> I would have thought that the dogs would have been entrusted to
> Princess Anne as she is the one more thought of as an animal lover
> than Andrew or Fergie. But, she was convicted of a criminal offence
> in 2002 under the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 and her copybook has been
> blotted dog-wise.
>
> I have always wondered who followed the Queen when she was walking her
> dogs and picked up after the dogs. I have never seen a photograph of
> the Queen carrying a bag, or bags, to be used for that purpose so I
> assume someone else - just out of camera range - was tasked with that.
> Is that person a designated member of the Royal Household, and - if so
> - is there a title involved? The Queen's Equerry of Excretion
> perhaps? The word "equerry" comes from the French écurie (stable) and
> is historically a senior attendant with responsibilities for the
> horses of a person of rank and both dogs and horses require a fouling
> follower.
>
> Will the person assigned to follow the Queen's dogs now be made
> redundant or will he (or she) go with the dogs to Andrew and Sarah's?
>
>
These are all important matters and I trust it's all documented in the
Operational Plan.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 11/09/2022 22:16, Tony Cooper wrote:
> I am, of course, diligently following the news stories out of the
> UK. I was greatly relieved to read that provision has been made for
> the future of the Queen's two corgis, her dorgi, and her cocker
> spaniel. They will, as I understand it, be relocated to the Royal
> Lodge at Windsor to live in the grace and favour residence with
> Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson.
>
> I would have thought that the dogs would have been entrusted to
> Princess Anne as she is the one more thought of as an animal lover
> than Andrew or Fergie. But, she was convicted of a criminal offence
> in 2002 under the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 and her copybook has
> been blotted dog-wise.
>
> I have always wondered who followed the Queen when she was walking
> her dogs and picked up after the dogs. I have never seen a
> photograph of the Queen carrying a bag, or bags, to be used for that
> purpose so I assume someone else - just out of camera range - was
> tasked with that. Is that person a designated member of the Royal
> Household, and - if so - is there a title involved? The Queen's
> Equerry of Excretion perhaps? The word "equerry" comes from the
> French écurie (stable) and is historically a senior attendant with
> responsibilities for the horses of a person of rank and both dogs and
> horses require a fouling follower.
>
> Will the person assigned to follow the Queen's dogs now be made
> redundant or will he (or she) go with the dogs to Andrew and
> Sarah's?

There was a position in the court of Henry VIII called 'Groom of the
Stool', whose duties were to assist the king in, ah, cleaning up
afterwards. (It was actually highly sought after, as it provided
intimate access to the monarch.) Following the corgis with a poo bag
seems trivial in comparison.

It's rumoured that King Charles has a servant whose duties include
squeezing paste onto his toothbrush. If it's the same post, one hopes he
washes his hands in between.

--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <jo8ds3Fpd4qU1@mid.individual.net>,
GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 11/09/2022 22:16, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > I am, of course, diligently following the news stories out of the
> > UK. I was greatly relieved to read that provision has been made for
> > the future of the Queen's two corgis, her dorgi, and her cocker
> > spaniel. They will, as I understand it, be relocated to the Royal
> > Lodge at Windsor to live in the grace and favour residence with
> > Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson.
> >
> > I would have thought that the dogs would have been entrusted to
> > Princess Anne as she is the one more thought of as an animal lover
> > than Andrew or Fergie. But, she was convicted of a criminal offence
> > in 2002 under the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 and her copybook has
> > been blotted dog-wise.
> >
> > I have always wondered who followed the Queen when she was walking
> > her dogs and picked up after the dogs. I have never seen a
> > photograph of the Queen carrying a bag, or bags, to be used for that
> > purpose so I assume someone else - just out of camera range - was
> > tasked with that. Is that person a designated member of the Royal
> > Household, and - if so - is there a title involved? The Queen's
> > Equerry of Excretion perhaps? The word "equerry" comes from the
> > French écurie (stable) and is historically a senior attendant with
> > responsibilities for the horses of a person of rank and both dogs and
> > horses require a fouling follower.
> >
> > Will the person assigned to follow the Queen's dogs now be made
> > redundant or will he (or she) go with the dogs to Andrew and
> > Sarah's?

> There was a position in the court of Henry VIII called 'Groom of the
> Stool', whose duties were to assist the king in, ah, cleaning up
> afterwards. (It was actually highly sought after, as it provided
> intimate access to the monarch.) Following the corgis with a poo bag
> seems trivial in comparison.

> It's rumoured that King Charles has a servant whose duties include
> squeezing paste onto his toothbrush. If it's the same post, one hopes he
> washes his hands in between.

That myth started when CIIIR had a broken collarbone and only had one
useable hand,

> -

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am, of course, diligently following the news stories out of the UK.
> I was greatly relieved to read that provision has been made for the
> future of the Queen's two corgis, her dorgi, and her cocker spaniel.
> They will, as I understand it, be relocated to the Royal Lodge at
> Windsor to live in the grace and favour residence with Prince Andrew
> and Sarah Ferguson.
>
> I would have thought that the dogs would have been entrusted to
> Princess Anne as she is the one more thought of as an animal lover
> than Andrew or Fergie. But, she was convicted of a criminal offence
> in 2002 under the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 and her copybook has been
> blotted dog-wise.
>
> I have always wondered who followed the Queen when she was walking her
> dogs and picked up after the dogs. I have never seen a photograph of
> the Queen carrying a bag, or bags, to be used for that purpose so I
> assume someone else - just out of camera range - was tasked with that.

You are blinded by being a more lowly life form.
The Queen's Corgis never leave her majesty's grounds,
so no regulations apply to what they are doing,
or about what she is to do about whatever they do,

Jan

On 12/09/2022 03:55, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-09-11 15:16, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> I am, of course, diligently following the news stories out of the UK.
>> I was greatly relieved to read that provision has been made for the
>> future of the Queen's two corgis, her dorgi, and her cocker spaniel.
>> They will, as I understand it, be relocated to the Royal Lodge at
>> Windsor to live in the grace and favour residence with Prince Andrew
>> and Sarah Ferguson.
>>
>> I would have thought that the dogs would have been entrusted to
>> Princess Anne as she is the one more thought of as an animal lover
>> than Andrew or Fergie.  But, she was convicted of a criminal offence
>> in 2002 under the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 and her copybook has been
>> blotted dog-wise.
>>
>> I have always wondered who followed the Queen when she was walking her
>> dogs and picked up after the dogs.  I have never seen a photograph of
>> the Queen carrying a bag, or bags, to be used for that purpose so I
>> assume someone else - just out of camera range - was tasked with that.
>> Is that person a designated member of the Royal Household, and - if so
>> - is there a title involved?  The Queen's Equerry of Excretion
>> perhaps?  The word "equerry" comes from the French écurie (stable) and
>> is historically a senior attendant with responsibilities for the
>> horses of a person of rank and both dogs and horses require a fouling
>> follower.
>
> Perhaps that would be the Chancellor of the Excrement Checker.

<smile>

The real answer I suspect is that the places the Queen walked her dogs
did not need to have poop picked up. That is an obligation on hoi polloi
like us, who walk dogs in city streets. The person(s) who followed the
Queen on her walks on her 2000-hectare estate was most probably more
concerned with her security rather than dog litter.

>
>> Will the person assigned to follow the Queen's dogs now be made
>> redundant or will he (or she) go with the dogs to Andrew and Sarah's?
>
>
>

Den 12.09.2022 kl. 19.13 skrev occam:

> The real answer I suspect is that the places the Queen walked her dogs
> did not need to have poop picked up. That is an obligation on hoi polloi
> like us, who walk dogs in city streets. The person(s) who followed the
> Queen on her walks on her 2000-hectare estate was most probably more
> concerned with her security rather than dog litter.

Suppose she walked the same route next day and stepped in a dog shit?

--
Bertel

On 12/09/2022 19:24, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Den 12.09.2022 kl. 19.13 skrev occam:
>
>> The real answer I suspect is that the places the Queen walked her dogs
>> did not need to have poop picked up. That is an obligation on hoi polloi
>> like us, who walk dogs in city streets. The person(s) who followed the
>> Queen on her walks on her 2000-hectare estate was most probably more
>> concerned with her security rather than dog litter.
>
> Suppose she walked the same route next day and stepped in a dog shit?
>

I am going to suppose that she had more sense than you are giving her
credit for.

Den 12.09.2022 kl. 23.47 skrev occam:

>> Suppose she walked the same route next day and stepped in a dog shit?

> I am going to suppose that she had more sense than you are giving her
> credit for.

Have you never stepped into one?

Her options for choice of path would be steadily diminished.

--
Bertel

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:48:59 PM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Den 12.09.2022 kl. 23.47 skrev occam:
>
> >> Suppose she walked the same route next day and stepped in a dog shit?
>
> > I am going to suppose that she had more sense than you are giving her
> > credit for.
> Have you never stepped into one?
>
> Her options for choice of path would be steadily diminished.
>
In Canadian English, and I strongly suspect in U.S. English, there is no such thing
as "a dog shit". It's "dog shit" (no article) or a variation on "a dog turd" or on "a pile
of dog shit".

Usage issues aside, I agree that you should not step in it.

bill

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:03:20 AM UTC+1, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:48:59 PM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> > Den 12.09.2022 kl. 23.47 skrev occam:
> >
> > >> Suppose she walked the same route next day and stepped in a dog shit?
> >
> > > I am going to suppose that she had more sense than you are giving her
> > > credit for.
> > Have you never stepped into one?
> >
> > Her options for choice of path would be steadily diminished.
> >
> In Canadian English, and I strongly suspect in U.S. English, there is no such thing
> as "a dog shit". It's "dog shit" (no article) or a variation on "a dog turd" or on "a pile
> of dog shit".

Same in BrE.

> Usage issues aside, I agree that you should not step in it.
>
> bill

Den 13.09.2022 kl. 09.03 skrev bil...@shaw.ca:

> In Canadian English, and I strongly suspect in U.S. English, there is no such thing
> as "a dog shit". It's "dog shit" (no article) or a variation on "a dog turd" or on "a pile
> of dog shit".

Okay. The corresponding Danish word, "lort", is both a countable word
and a mass word.

--
Bertel

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 1:48:59 AM UTC-4, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Den 12.09.2022 kl. 23.47 skrev occam:

[do not delete attributions]
> >> Suppose she walked the same route next day and stepped in a dog shit?
> > I am going to suppose that she had more sense than you are giving her
> > credit for.
>
> Have you never stepped into one?
>
> Her options for choice of path would be steadily diminished.

From the nostalgic vids of the frolicking doggies, they play on
an open field -- no "paths" that could be the same from day to day.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:03:17 -0700 (PDT), "bil...@shaw.ca"
<billvan@shaw.ca> wrote:

>On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:48:59 PM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Den 12.09.2022 kl. 23.47 skrev occam:
>>
>> >> Suppose she walked the same route next day and stepped in a dog shit?
>>
>> > I am going to suppose that she had more sense than you are giving her
>> > credit for.
>> Have you never stepped into one?
>>
>> Her options for choice of path would be steadily diminished.
>>
>In Canadian English, and I strongly suspect in U.S. English,

Yes.

>there is no such thing
>as "a dog shit". It's "dog shit" (no article) or a variation on "a dog turd" or on "a pile
>of dog shit".

Often the word "dog" is omitted, and it's just "shit" or "a pile of
shit."

When you see it on the street, it's almost always *dog* shit, but I've
seen human shit on the street in San Francisco a couple of times.

>Usage issues aside, I agree that you should not step in it.

Unlike most statements in AUE, it's unlikely that anyone here will
disagree.

On 2022-09-13 14:44:04 +0000, Ken Blake said:

> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:03:17 -0700 (PDT), "bil...@shaw.ca"
> <billvan@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:48:59 PM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>> Den 12.09.2022 kl. 23.47 skrev occam:>>>> >> Suppose she walked the
>>> same route next day and stepped in a dog shit?>>>> > I am going to
>>> suppose that she had more sense than you are giving her>> > credit for.
>>> Have you never stepped into one?>>>> Her options for choice of path
>>> would be steadily diminished.>>>In Canadian English, and I strongly
>>> suspect in U.S. English,
> Yes.
>
>> there is no such thing>as "a dog shit". It's "dog shit" (no article) or
>> a variation on "a dog turd" or on "a pile
>> of dog shit".
>
> Often the word "dog" is omitted, and it's just "shit" or "a pile of
> shit."
>
> When you see it on the street, it's almost always *dog* shit, but I've
> seen human shit on the street in San Francisco a couple of times.

If you'd been in the Congress on 6th January 2021 you might have seen
some there.
>
>> Usage issues aside, I agree that you should not step in it.
>
>
> Unlike most statements in AUE, it's unlikely that anyone here will
> disagree.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 17:20:24 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2022-09-13 14:44:04 +0000, Ken Blake said:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:03:17 -0700 (PDT), "bil...@shaw.ca"
>> <billvan@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:48:59 PM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>> Den 12.09.2022 kl. 23.47 skrev occam:>>>> >> Suppose she walked the
>>>> same route next day and stepped in a dog shit?>>>> > I am going to
>>>> suppose that she had more sense than you are giving her>> > credit for.
>>>> Have you never stepped into one?>>>> Her options for choice of path
>>>> would be steadily diminished.>>>In Canadian English, and I strongly
>>>> suspect in U.S. English,
>> Yes.
>>
>>> there is no such thing>as "a dog shit". It's "dog shit" (no article) or
>>> a variation on "a dog turd" or on "a pile
>>> of dog shit".
>>
>> Often the word "dog" is omitted, and it's just "shit" or "a pile of
>> shit."
>>
>> When you see it on the street, it's almost always *dog* shit, but I've
>> seen human shit on the street in San Francisco a couple of times.
>
>If you'd been in the Congress on 6th January 2021 you might have seen
>some there.
>>

While your meaning is clear, "If you'd been in the Capitol Building on
6th January 2021..." or "If you'd been in congress on 6th January
2021..." would better describe what you said.

We don't say "in the Congress" referring to a congressperson,

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 2022-09-13 16:35:06 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 17:20:24 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-09-13 14:44:04 +0000, Ken Blake said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:03:17 -0700 (PDT), "bil...@shaw.ca"
>>> <billvan@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:48:59 PM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>>> Den 12.09.2022 kl. 23.47 skrev occam:>>>> >> Suppose she walked the
>>>>> same route next day and stepped in a dog shit?>>>> > I am going to
>>>>> suppose that she had more sense than you are giving her>> > credit for.
>>>>> Have you never stepped into one?>>>> Her options for choice of path
>>>>> would be steadily diminished.>>>In Canadian English, and I strongly
>>>>> suspect in U.S. English,
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> there is no such thing>as "a dog shit". It's "dog shit" (no article) or
>>>> a variation on "a dog turd" or on "a pile
>>>> of dog shit".
>>>
>>> Often the word "dog" is omitted, and it's just "shit" or "a pile of
>>> shit."
>>>
>>> When you see it on the street, it's almost always *dog* shit, but I've
>>> seen human shit on the street in San Francisco a couple of times.
>>
>> If you'd been in the Congress on 6th January 2021 you might have seen
>> some there.
>>>
>
> While your meaning is clear, "If you'd been in the Capitol Building on
> 6th January 2021..." or "If you'd been in congress on 6th January
> 2021..." would better describe what you said.
>
> We don't say "in the Congress" referring to a congressperson,

No doubt. I wasn't sure of the correct phraseology, and too lazy to
look it up, because I thought that everyone, with the possible
exception of PTD, would know waht I meant.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 18:53:12 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2022-09-13 16:35:06 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 17:20:24 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-09-13 14:44:04 +0000, Ken Blake said:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:03:17 -0700 (PDT), "bil...@shaw.ca"
>>>> <billvan@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:48:59 PM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>>>> Den 12.09.2022 kl. 23.47 skrev occam:>>>> >> Suppose she walked the
>>>>>> same route next day and stepped in a dog shit?>>>> > I am going to
>>>>>> suppose that she had more sense than you are giving her>> > credit for.
>>>>>> Have you never stepped into one?>>>> Her options for choice of path
>>>>>> would be steadily diminished.>>>In Canadian English, and I strongly
>>>>>> suspect in U.S. English,
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>> there is no such thing>as "a dog shit". It's "dog shit" (no article) or
>>>>> a variation on "a dog turd" or on "a pile
>>>>> of dog shit".
>>>>
>>>> Often the word "dog" is omitted, and it's just "shit" or "a pile of
>>>> shit."
>>>>
>>>> When you see it on the street, it's almost always *dog* shit, but I've
>>>> seen human shit on the street in San Francisco a couple of times.
>>>
>>> If you'd been in the Congress on 6th January 2021 you might have seen
>>> some there.
>>>>
>>
>> While your meaning is clear, "If you'd been in the Capitol Building on
>> 6th January 2021..." or "If you'd been in congress on 6th January
>> 2021..." would better describe what you said.
>>
>> We don't say "in the Congress" referring to a congressperson,
>
>No doubt. I wasn't sure of the correct phraseology, and too lazy to
>look it up, because I thought that everyone, with the possible
>exception of PTD, would know waht I meant.

As I did. My comment was only to explain US usage.

Should the people of France converge violently on the seat of
government, I'm not at all sure where that would be. The Palais of
Bourbon?

Outside of which building would they park the tumbril if they intended
to separate Macron's head from his body?

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:35:14 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 17:20:24 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >On 2022-09-13 14:44:04 +0000, Ken Blake said:
> >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:03:17 -0700 (PDT), "bil...@shaw.ca"
> >> <bil...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:48:59 PM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> >>>> Den 12.09.2022 kl. 23.47 skrev occam:>>>> >> Suppose she walked the
> >>>> same route next day and stepped in a dog shit?>>>> > I am going to
> >>>> suppose that she had more sense than you are giving her>> > credit for.
> >>>> Have you never stepped into one?>>>> Her options for choice of path
> >>>> would be steadily diminished.>>>In Canadian English, and I strongly
> >>>> suspect in U.S. English,
> >> Yes.
> >>> there is no such thing>as "a dog shit". It's "dog shit" (no article) or
> >>> a variation on "a dog turd" or on "a pile
> >>> of dog shit".
> >> Often the word "dog" is omitted, and it's just "shit" or "a pile of
> >> shit."
> >> When you see it on the street, it's almost always *dog* shit, but I've
> >> seen human shit on the street in San Francisco a couple of times.
> >If you'd been in the Congress on 6th January 2021 you might have seen
> >some there.
>
> While your meaning is clear, "If you'd been in the Capitol Building on
> 6th January 2021..." or "If you'd been in congress on 6th January
> 2021..." would better describe what you said.
>
> We don't say "in the Congress" referring to a congressperson,

Why not?

If he'd been in the Congress, he wouldn't have seen the human
feces, because he would have been shepherded out of the
chamber by the security people without passing through the
public areas that were violated, or, obviously, the offices that
had been occupied.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:53:17 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-09-13 16:35:06 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

> > We don't say "in the Congress" referring to a congressperson,
>
> No doubt. I wasn't sure of the correct phraseology, and too lazy to
> look it up, because I thought that everyone, with the possible
> exception of PTD, would know waht I meant.

PTD, of course, knew how wrong you were, but it was hardly
worth commenting on.

Do stop attributing your own stupidity to others.