On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:07:19 AM UTC-5, CDB wrote:
> On 12/29/2022 3:36 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > CDB wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> CDB wrote:
> >>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>> occam wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Miller - more than a comedian by the way - was of
> >>>>>> Lithuanian Jewish descent. That he was not religiously
> >>>>>> Jewish was his life choice. That the Toronto crowd failed
> >>>>>> to appreciate a joke made by a Jew about 'Jew-ish' says
> >>>>>> more about the N. Americans mindset than about (Sir)
> >>>>>> Jonathan Miller.
> >>>>> For the gazillionth time, "N. America" is not a legitimate
> >>>>> euphemism for 'Canada'.
> >>>> And "Toronto" is not a legitimate "euphemism" (?) for
> >>>> "Canada".
> >>> ("NAm" has routinely been used that way here.)
>
> >> Not by me; and I think I may have been the first one here to insist
> >> on
>
> > Did anyone suggest that you did?
> I suggested it, but I was not sure that it was true.
> > Look at who misused it above.
> Do you mean Yanks would have laughed raucously?
>
> I assume that Occam meant that people of both countries would have had
> the same reaction.

Really? "That the Toronto crowd failed to appreciate a joke made by
a Jew about 'Jew-ish' says more about the N. Americans mindset ..."
I doubt I've ever seen Torontans offered as typical NAmers before.

> That is oversimplified, because rural Quebeckers
> would probably have reacted differently than Torontonians did, and
> Kansans differently than Bostonians would. And, of course, Canadians
> (TM) are politer than other North Americans.

Indubitably.

> >> it. Usonians are far too prone to take "America" to mean only
> >> their country.
> >> I use it, in the context of English usage and especially in the
> >> short form "NAmE", to mean "both the US and Canada". If I mean
> >> "Canada", that is what I write.
> >> Les ruego a los Mexicanos de disculparme de mi descuido.

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 2:36:58 PM UTC-5, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> "Tell Firstname Lastname you don't want them to raise taxes / cut
> Medicare."

Remember the TEA Party's placards "Keep your government hands
off my Medicare"?

> But according to the article I linked to, the ones that are identified
> as being from the candidate are more effective.

Eventually, Hochul put one out with her signing the Bail Reform Reform
legislation. (There wasn't a scintilla of evidence that anyone who was
released without bail recidivized at a higher rate than the other kind.)

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 1:40:50 PM UTC-7, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-12-30 04:34, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 30/12/22 19:30, Snidely wrote:
> >> Friday, Bertel Lund Hansen murmurred ...
> >>> Den 30.12.2022 kl. 04.02 skrev Jerry Friedman:
> >>>
> >>>> I've now seen that too, but as this article points out, his opponent
> >>>> didn't have
> >>>> to wait for the media--he could have pointed out the discrepancies in
> >>>> his
> >>>> advertising.
> >>>
> >>> I don't that it's a good idea to use your own advertising space to
> >>> talk about the opponents.
> >>
> >> Maybe not, but "attack ads" are a thing, and often outnumber the ads
> >> where the attacking candidate actually states their own position.
> >
> > They give a bad impression, though. I wouldn't vote for anyone who did
> > attack ads.
> Foe me, it depends entirely on the 'attack' ad, in that what is
> perceived as an attack ad may not be, in my opinion, an attack ad.
>
> Do you think that pointing out a flaw or an unintended consequence, or a
> cost, of an opponent's platform is an attack? I sure don't.
>
> I do think lying about an opponent's platform is an an attack, as is an
> ad hominem attack on an opponent.

Would pointing out that one's opponent is making false claims about his
work history and education count as ad hominem?

--
Jerry Friedman

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:40:50 PM UTC-5, lar3ryca wrote:

> Foe me, it depends entirely on the 'attack' ad, in that what is
> perceived as an attack ad may not be, in my opinion, an attack ad.
>
> Do you think that pointing out a flaw or an unintended consequence, or a
> cost, of an opponent's platform is an attack? I sure don't.

One wonders whether lar3 has ever seen an attack ad.

The most famous one in history, the "Willie Horton ad," falsely
associated Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis with a
weekend-furlough program _that he had nothing to do with_,
which put a convict on the street who was said to have raped
or murdered again. (It showed scary-looking black men emerging
from a revolving door
It played a big part in getting G. H. W. Bush elected. The operative
who designed it and went on to run FoxNews for Murdoch, Roger
Ailes, apologized on his deathbed, many years later.

> I do think lying about an opponent's platform is an an attack, as is an
> ad hominem attack on an opponent.

Kindly show attack ads that don't fit either of those characterizations.

On 2022-12-30 14:52, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 1:40:50 PM UTC-7, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2022-12-30 04:34, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 30/12/22 19:30, Snidely wrote:
>>>> Friday, Bertel Lund Hansen murmurred ...
>>>>> Den 30.12.2022 kl. 04.02 skrev Jerry Friedman:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've now seen that too, but as this article points out, his opponent
>>>>>> didn't have
>>>>>> to wait for the media--he could have pointed out the discrepancies in
>>>>>> his
>>>>>> advertising.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't that it's a good idea to use your own advertising space to
>>>>> talk about the opponents.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe not, but "attack ads" are a thing, and often outnumber the ads
>>>> where the attacking candidate actually states their own position.
>>>
>>> They give a bad impression, though. I wouldn't vote for anyone who did
>>> attack ads.
>> Foe me, it depends entirely on the 'attack' ad, in that what is
>> perceived as an attack ad may not be, in my opinion, an attack ad.
>>
>> Do you think that pointing out a flaw or an unintended consequence, or a
>> cost, of an opponent's platform is an attack? I sure don't.
>>
>> I do think lying about an opponent's platform is an an attack, as is an
>> ad hominem attack on an opponent.
>
> Would pointing out that one's opponent is making false claims about his
> work history and education count as ad hominem?

I would not consider that an ad hominem attack. Facts is Facts, and if
the candidate lied about his work history, it's fair game to mention it.
If the accuser is wrong, let the courts decide if it's libellous.

--
The universe is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons and morons.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 16:15:14 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:

>
>I would not consider that an ad hominem attack. Facts is Facts, and if
>the candidate lied about his work history, it's fair game to mention it.
>If the accuser is wrong, let the courts decide if it's libellous.

In Pennsylvania this year, Fetterman's history of wanting to
parole a particular murderer was used in an attack ad.

The ad did not mention that the murderer had been in prison
for 42 years, after a conviction at age 17.

Fetterman's record on crime and criminals was hard to criticize
with any honesty.

Another sort of attack carried a double blast, using implication,
like condemning candidates for having supported socialists
and communist radicals like Joe Biden or maybe the AOC gang.

A side effect of the really terrible ads, I believe, is that viewers
became unlikely to take seriously any accusation in the ads.
At least, if it was against the candidate they already supported.
That is my conclusion, after the fact -- I was surprised that the
heavier advertising for Oz in the last two weeks did not swing the
election from Fetterman, who won by the narrow margin that the
polls had measured for some weeks.

--
Rich Ulrich

On 12/30/2022 10:03 AM, TonyCooper wrote:
> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> TonyCooper wrote:
>>> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> occam wrote:

>>>>>> Miller - more than a comedian by the way - was of
>>>>>> Lithuanian Jewish descent. That he was not religiously
>>>>>> Jewish was his life choice. That the Toronto crowd failed
>>>>>> to appreciate a joke made by a Jew about 'Jew-ish' says
>>>>>> more about the N. Americans mindset than about (Sir)
>>>>>> Jonathan Miller.

>>>>> For the gazillionth time, "N. America" is not a legitimate
>>>>> euphemism for 'Canada'.

>>>> And "Toronto" is not a legitimate "euphemism" (?) for
>>>> "Canada".

>>>>> That joke kills in New York. And is probably a lot older
>>>>> than Jonathan Miller.

>>>>> Maybe it would have worked in Montreal, where there's
>>>>> actually a significant Jewish community.

>>>> There is a large and active Jewish community in Toronto.

>>> Younger ones, I assume. The older members of the community are
>>> sedentary.

>> The nether parts are sitting down, but the upper parts are still
>> thinking and talking. I am always interested in what Janice Stein
>> (frex) has to say.

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr03VJ6Elag

>> [humour]

> Steve Palkin started the conversation saying "We're talking turkey
> tonight". That may prompt a certain poster here to spew out a
> series of posts about the misleading use of "talking turkey" because
> that expression, in his own experience, means "talking frankly about
> a subject".

(Paikin)

> Also, he may think the "Ottoman Empire" is a furniture store that
> specializes in footstools.

Good name, if you had such a store.

On 12/30/2022 3:23 PM, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> occam wrote:

>>>> Miller - more than a comedian by the way - was of Lithuanian
>>>> Jewish descent. That he was not religiously Jewish was his
>>>> life choice. That the Toronto crowd failed to appreciate a joke
>>>> made by a Jew about 'Jew-ish' says more about the N. Americans
>>>> mindset than about (Sir) Jonathan Miller.

>>> For the gazillionth time, "N. America" is not a legitimate
>>> euphemism for 'Canada'.
>> And "Toronto" is not a legitimate "euphemism" (?) for "Canada".

> Of course it is. I watch the national news every day, and so I know
> it is a fact that if it happened in Toronto, it happened in Canada.
> And I know that you know that if it happened on Front Street West,
> it happened from coast to coast.

"Are you bitter?"

TonyCooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> Drifting a bit...Many of the news reports also point out that the
> reaction from other Republicans is "crickets". "Crickets" is used to
> mean no response; silence.
>
> That always bothers me. The sound of crickets is anything but silent
> in my experience. A cacophony of crickets at night can be almost
> deafening.

I think it is early Hollywood sound movie convention.
Having silence on the sound track won't do,
for then all kinds of background noises dominate.
(projector clatter, shuffling feet, coughs, and so on)

So crickets were dubbed in for outdoor scenes
to mean complete silence,

Jan

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 9:32:21 AM UTC-5, CDB wrote:
> On 12/30/2022 10:03 AM, TonyCooper wrote:

> > Also, he may think the "Ottoman Empire" is a furniture store that
> > specializes in footstools.
>
> Good name, if you had such a store.

TC was attempting yet again to insult me.

In fact it was the name of the furniture store in the ABC sitcom *The
Goldbergs*, operated by the paterfamilias, who was killed off between
last season and this season because the actor Jeff Garlin was accused
in some sort of MeToo thing -- he didn't appear in the last several
episodes of the last season, except that they couldn't very well show
him not present at his son's (the central character's) high school
graduation, so they dropped in a couple of shots of a look-alike (with
no lines).

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 10:22:47 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> TonyCooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Drifting a bit...Many of the news reports also point out that the
> > reaction from other Republicans is "crickets". "Crickets" is used to
> > mean no response; silence.
> >
> > That always bothers me. The sound of crickets is anything but silent
> > in my experience. A cacophony of crickets at night can be almost
> > deafening.
>
> I think it is early Hollywood sound movie convention.

FSVO "early."

> Having silence on the sound track won't do,
> for then all kinds of background noises dominate.
> (projector clatter, shuffling feet, coughs, and so on)
>
> So crickets were dubbed in for outdoor scenes
> to mean complete silence,

Until maybe the mid 1930s, there was often complete
silence on the soundtrack. Especially in British movies,
music was provided in discrete chunks, not continuously.

After 5+ pages of Google hits for downloads of an "Awkward
Silence Crickets sound effect," there's only a single suggestion
of an explanation for its origin -- _radio_ dramas in the 1920s,
plus examples from Bugs Bunny beginning in 1950..

https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-chirping-cricket-joke-originate-from

The lexicographer observes the usage over the last 20 years but
doesn't investigate the origin.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/words-were-watching-crickets-silence

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 9:30:33 AM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:21:49 PM UTC-5, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Dec 2022 11:00:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 12:17:05 PM UTC-5, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 9:54:11 AM UTC-7, TonyCooper wrote:
>
> > >> Makes me wonder why no one checked the first time he ran, two years
> > >> ago, or before the recent election.
> > >No one thought he had any chance?
> >
> > I heard an old-timer NY Democrat on MSNBC say that no
> > one thought Santos had any chance, this year.
> Suozzi is a rightwing Democrat. I don't know anything about Zimmerman
> except that he's been in Nassau County politics for years, and is white-
> haired -- and is also gay. But that alone, obviously, doesn't make him
> "too liberal" for the historically Democratic district. Before the scandal,
> the blame was being placed on the nonexistence of any Hochul campaign
> in the area. If they'd turned out the vote, presumably her coattails would
> have done their usual thing. But Zeldin was constantly on TV with his lies
> about "crime" and "bail reform."
> > >"In June 2020, Suozzi won a three-way Democratic primary in New York's
> > >3rd congressional district with 66.5% of the votes. In the general election,
> > >he defeated Republican nominee George Santos, a finance executive, **
> > >by over 12 points." (Wikip Suozzi)
> > >
> > >** He seems not to have been a finance executive, either.
> >
> > I wondered whether that fake background was new. Calling Santos a
> > finance executive in 2020 suggests that the whole fake background
> > was put in place in 2020. So - it is more excusable that he was not
> > investigated when he did, indeed, go on to lose big. Since I suspect
> > that he is a pawn, a tool, a candidate designed by someone rich,
> > I wonder if the early run was for the purpose of sneaking the fake
> > credentials out there -- in 2020, they were not examined because he
> > had no chance; in 2022, reporters looked back and assumed that they
> > had been checked.
> As of this morning, prosecutors on three levels (including the Republican
> D.A. of Nassau County) are looking into how his company suddenly had
> close to a million dollars that he could "lend" to his campaign. (Along
> with NYS A.G. Tish James and the US Attorney for the Eastern District
> of NY, which is everything east of the East River.)
>
> But the principal outrage from the locals is that he exploited a supposed
> Holocaust connection in the heavily Jewish district. Further outrage
> centers on the exploitation of the Pulse Night Club shootings, where
> five employees of his were _not_ victims.
> > >> Our foreign friends may be interested to know that although naturalized
> > >> citizens can lose their citizenship if they're found to have lied on their
> > >> application, there's nothing about not seating someone elected to
> > >> Congress because they lied in their campaign. Congress can expel him
> > >> or maybe refuse to seat him, but not with a tiny Republican majority.
> >
> > We expect no refusal to seat him seat him since the tiny Republican
> > majority is devoted to 'winning is everything' and, therefore, is
> > shameless.
> At some point, hypocrisy has to crack them.

It turns out that "Long Island Newspaper" actually reported on George Santos' financial scams BEFORE the 2022 election:

Long Island Newspaper - De
-- https://www.longisland.com/news/12-30-22/george-santos-story-broke-by-local-li-newspaper-months-ago.html
==========================

Local Paper Reported On Santos Scandal Before Nov. Election
PBS - Jan 11, 2023
-- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/small-local-paper-uncovered-and-reported-george-santos-scandal-before-november-election