Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)

On 16-9-2017 21:43, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

If we're trotting out the classics:

Land of hope and ---

Dispair???

Richard Tobin" wrote in message
news
In article ,
They include the following eight (8)

Oh yes! Think punctuation signs.


And I like (1,6,1,4), even if the 6 should really be 7 to include the
apostrophe :-)

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 07:25:56 +0800, Robert Bannister
wrote:

On 16/9/17 2:12 am, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| **** Monarchy *is* government. Look it up. That's
|
| (In which dictionary? [And I agree with whoever said a dictionary isn't
| a constitutional textbook anyway; most dictionaries, despite what many
| people think and often desire, record how language _is_ used, not
how it
| _should_ be.])
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy

*I find it hard to believe we're even having this
conversation. Monarchy didn't change just because
its form changed in Britain. It's a country run by
a ruler. For instance, Saudi Arabia. Bhutan and Tibet
until very recently. And all monarchies until relatively
recent times.

That's your definition. Just because it's yours, doesn't make it
everybody's. There are several titular (or constitutional, or many other
such words) monarchies: I _think_ the Spanish one is, and the Dutch and
Danish ones are.

*That was my whole point in calling it anachronistic.
The British monarchy are accorded the respect given
to actual leaders. The British people like to carry on
the glory of the old institutions. It's an ambiguous and
ambivalent tradition, with one foot in history and one
foot in the present.

Like many British institutions, it would never get off the ground in its
present form if proposed today, but survives. (Another such is the BBC.)
I don't think most Brits would associate the word "glory" with it; pomp
and ceremony maybe, though mostly only on certain occasions.

*I wonder about the actual logistics. I assume the
royal family are filthy rich via inheritance, allowing

They're certainly not poor, especially Charles.

them to carry on as monarchs without requiring an
awkward, national discussion about how much people
are willing to pay for royalty. On the other hand,

They _do_ get some state money. I'm not sure of the details. I think a
fair proportion of the British (or at least English) public don't mind
this; it doesn't actually get discussed often.

I suspect that most Australians think that they each contribute about $2
a year for the upkeep of the Queen, but in fact she costs us nothing.
Not one cent. However, special events like royal visits do cost money.
On the other hand, so would a state visit by Trump or the pope.

Tell me where to send it, and I'll kick in my $2 if the Queen would
take charge over here. She could tell Trump that we lost the war in
the 1700s and we're still under her rule. He never reads the briefing
material, so he'd buy that pup.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
news
In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

If we're trotting out the classics:

Land of hope and --- (7)

Hmmm. Not glory since that's 5 and anyway it's fairly obvious. Any hints?

In article ,
NY wrote:

If we're trotting out the classics:

Land of hope and --- (7)

Hmmm. Not glory since that's 5 and anyway it's fairly obvious. Any hints?

I don't think it was ever published in a real crossword; it's just
quoted as a favourite by crossword setters. It's a biblical reference.

-- Richard

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 08:10:25 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| On the whole, I tend not to see them (UK flags - union flag or English
| flag) at all, travelling around England - certainly, I don't think I've
| seen one on a _private_ dwelling for months if not years.
|
| I do not state this as saying it is either superior or inferior; I just
| thought US readers might find the fact interesting, in response to
| Athel's observation above.

That's also been my experience, in my limited
travels to other countries as an American. I
hadn't thought of it until someone pointed it out.
I wonder if it might be connected to our general
lack of shared culture in the US. In many ways the
US feels like a campground. People arrive regularly.
The people already here often don't have roots.
That shared experience, rather than ethnicity and
land, is the culture.

Last weekend I saw a grotesque example of our
"patriotism". There was a football game on TV.
Apparently the season opener. The field was entirely
covered by a gigantic flag. As the national anthem
was sung by a "yodeling" country singer, a bald
eagle flew around the stadium! It had a string on it's
feet. Maybe they were tied together. Maybe it was
on a leash. I couldn't tell. Then the cameras panned to
the fans to show that this was, indeed, a momentous
event because people were taking photos of the poor
bird with their cellphones.


That was "Challenger". It is a trained bald eagle cared for by the
non-profit American Eagle Foundation. He flies at football games and
other sports events for a fee, and the fee supports the Foundation and
its work in rehabilitating injured eagles.

Challenger is non-releasable into the wild because it was rescued as
an eaglet when blown from the nest and has been raised by humans. It
lacks the instincts of survival in nature.

Challenger lives in Dollywood, Pigeon Forge, Tennessee when not making
appearances at sports events. It was named in honor of the space
shuttle "Challenger" that blew up.

Anyone going to a professional football game is going to spend at
least $100/$200 for a ticket, parking, and something from the
concession stand for even a nosebleed seat. They want a show for that
kind of money, and the game isn't enough. If they were interested in
just the game, watching it on TV gives them a better view and the
audio commentary. And, more physical comfort.

I spent almost $100 taking my son to an Orlando Magic basketball game,
and we used a friend's season tickets. As I told the lady who sold us
the beer, I've never paid that much for a beer from a woman with that
many clothes on.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 16/9/17 2:56 pm, Snidely wrote:
Robert Bannister used thar keyboard to writen:
On 15/9/17 3:17 pm, Snidely wrote:
Wolf K noted that:
On 2017-09-13 11:26, Ken Blake wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:03:29 +0100, "NY" wrote:


Mind you that applies to many senior positions: any Prime Minister
of the UK
is automatically also First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for
the Civil
Service.


Are those permanent titles or do they go away when they are no longer
Prime Minister?

Prime Minister is not a title. It's a designation, like 2nd
Vice-president or Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Manager.

I think you mean, "Prime Minister is not a title in the aristocratic
sense; it is instead a job title."

(Quick, what's the difference between a book's title and it's
designation?)

In the USA, AFAICT a President is a President for the rest of his
life. That's because he is the Head of State as well as the Head of
Government.

I'm not sure how that logic applies to Head-of-State (Ret).

Historically, heads-of-state were monarchs or tyrants of another kind
and they always remained in office until their death (which often
occurred sooner than they expected). Retirement wasn't really an
option, because while they were alive, they represented a possible
danger to their successors.

Yes, but remember we have a 200+ year record of mostly retiring our
heads of state.* So we're used to it.* Jimmy Carter doesn't operate as a
head of state these days.* He does operate as someone who has built up
an account of goodwill and respect, but the difference between him and
Bill Gates is that the Guy From Georgia does his humanitarian work
without being associated with Redmond, Washington.

Only four presidents actually killed, but over 30 attempts according to
Wiki.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

On 17/9/17 1:24 am, UnsteadyKen wrote:
In article ,
lid says...
I'm puzzled by the folks who thought the
clue was creative. I think it's awful.

And here, a bit contrived I thought.

One of the best clues I ever saw was...

hijklmno

5 Letters



Sounds a bit wet to me.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 07:06:35 +0800, Robert Bannister
wrote:

On 17/9/17 1:24 am, UnsteadyKen wrote:
In article ,
lid says...
I'm puzzled by the folks who thought the
clue was creative. I think it's awful.

And here, a bit contrived I thought.

One of the best clues I ever saw was...

hijklmno

5 Letters



Sounds a bit wet to me.

Get your mind out of the gutter, Bannister.

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 21:21:53 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

In article ,
NY wrote:

If we're trotting out the classics:

Land of hope and --- (7)

Hmmm. Not glory since that's 5 and anyway it's fairly obvious. Any hints?

I don't think it was ever published in a real crossword; it's just
quoted as a favourite by crossword setters. It's a biblical reference.

Charity.

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 11:33:50 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

Bill Gates is a self-appointed
genius who's trying to commandeer US education
because he thinks he knows more about it than
teachers do. (And of course, his plan does seem
to involve lots of Microsoft products. What it does
not seem to involve is buying books, paying teachers,
building playgrounds and school buildings, or giving
any of the money to the people who actually know
about education.)


Given the choice, I'd prefer Bill Gates in charge of education in the
US over our current Secretary of Education: Betsy DeVos.

Betsy is in favor of buying books, paying teachers, etc, but only in
charter schools run for profit. As far as she is concerned, our
public school system deserves as much attention as Gates gives to
supporting Windows 95.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Tony Cooper" wrote

| Given the choice, I'd prefer Bill Gates in charge of education in the
| US over our current Secretary of Education: Betsy DeVos.
|

Jeez. Are you trying to give people nightmares?

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 00:17:45 -0700, Snidely
wrote:

Wolf K noted that:
On 2017-09-13 11:26, Ken Blake wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:03:29 +0100, "NY" wrote:


Mind you that applies to many senior positions: any Prime Minister of the
UK
is automatically also First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the
Civil
Service.


Are those permanent titles or do they go away when they are no longer
Prime Minister?

Prime Minister is not a title. It's a designation, like 2nd Vice-president or
Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Manager.

I think you mean, "Prime Minister is not a title in the aristocratic
sense; it is instead a job title."

In the 18th Century "Prime Minister" was an insult, rather than a
designation or a job title.


--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 17:25:04 +0100, Katy Jennison
wrote:

On 13/09/2017 14:09, Cheryl wrote:

Ideally, it increases national unity without tying the nation to the
fortunes of a particular political party. It doesn't have anything to do
with status as a former empire, although former empires can have a
natural candidate for such a position in the person of the
king/queen/emperor.


We have disliked and distrusted so many of our Prime Ministers that we
have been thoroughly put off the prospect of any of them becoming more
Presidential.

And the term "Prime Minister" originated as a disparaging reference to
the presidential ambitions of some politicians. It's still not, as far
as I'm aware, an official designation or job description -- that, as
someone else pointed out, is "First Lord of the Treasury".

--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

On 9/16/2017 7:13 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Tony Cooper" wrote

| Given the choice, I'd prefer Bill Gates in charge of education in the
| US over our current Secretary of Education: Betsy DeVos.
|

Jeez. Are you trying to give people nightmares?

Given the choice, I'd prefer a clay ashtray as Secretary of Education to
Betsy DeVos....r