A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #571  
Old September 20th 17, 11:58 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.usage.english,alt.windows7.general
Robert Bannister[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)

On 20/9/17 2:10 pm, Snidely wrote:
Saturday, Robert Bannister quipped:
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.


And very few of the 30 attempts involved a retired President.


True, but that would be locking the stable door too late. Do your
ex-presidents receive an enormous retirement package like our Aussie
prime ministers and even ordinary parliamentarians do?

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Ads
  #572  
Old September 21st 17, 11:40 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.usage.english,alt.windows7.general
Cheryl[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)

On 2017-09-20 8:28 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
On 20/9/17 2:10 pm, Snidely wrote:
Saturday, Robert Bannister quipped:
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.


And very few of the 30 attempts involved a retired President.


True, but that would be locking the stable door too late. Do your
ex-presidents receive an enormous retirement package like our Aussie
prime ministers and even ordinary parliamentarians do?

I think all politicians have generous pensions, but the real prizes are
well-paying sinecures in industry.

--
Cheryl
  #573  
Old September 22nd 17, 12:25 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.usage.english,alt.windows7.general
Robert Bannister[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)

On 21/9/17 6:40 pm, Cheryl wrote:
On 2017-09-20 8:28 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
On 20/9/17 2:10 pm, Snidely wrote:
Saturday, Robert Bannister quipped:
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.

And very few of the 30 attempts involved a retired President.


True, but that would be locking the stable door too late. Do your
ex-presidents receive an enormous retirement package like our Aussie
prime ministers and even ordinary parliamentarians do?

I think all politicians have generous pensions, but the real prizes are
well-paying sinecures in industry.

That is the part the really sticks in my throat: they get these 7 figure
jobs as a figurehead while they are still receiving thousands of
taxpayers' money in superannuation.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
  #574  
Old September 22nd 17, 09:30 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.usage.english,alt.windows7.general
John Dunlop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)

Robert Bannister:

Only four presidents actually killed, but over 30 attempts according
to Wiki.


A murderous lot, these presidents. Just as well they're not very good at it.

--
John
  #575  
Old September 22nd 17, 09:32 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.usage.english,alt.windows7.general
Snidely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)

On Wednesday, Robert Bannister pointed out that ...
On 20/9/17 2:10 pm, Snidely wrote:
Saturday, Robert Bannister quipped:
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.


And very few of the 30 attempts involved a retired President.


True, but that would be locking the stable door too late. Do your
ex-presidents receive an enormous retirement package like our Aussie prime
ministers and even ordinary parliamentarians do?


The point is that out of 44 presidents no longer serving, 36 outlived
the terms in office (and I would count Nixon as "retired" even if he
didn't complete his term). Most of the 36 outlived the office by more
than 4 years.

/dps

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
  #576  
Old September 23rd 17, 12:16 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.usage.english,alt.windows7.general
Robert Bannister[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)

On 22/9/17 7:28 am, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-09-21 19:25, Robert Bannister wrote:
On 21/9/17 6:40 pm, Cheryl wrote:
On 2017-09-20 8:28 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
On 20/9/17 2:10 pm, Snidely wrote:
Saturday, Robert Bannister quipped:
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.Â* So we're used to it.Â* Jimmy Carter doesn't operate
as a head of state these days.Â* 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.

And very few of the 30 attempts involved a retired President.

True, but that would be locking the stable door too late. Do your
ex-presidents receive an enormous retirement package like our Aussie
prime ministers and even ordinary parliamentarians do?

I think all politicians have generous pensions, but the real prizes
are well-paying sinecures in industry.

That is the part the really sticks in my throat: they get these 7
figure jobs as a figurehead while they are still receiving thousands
of taxpayers' money in superannuation.


While "private" business people get several times that much. That's what
stick in my throat.


Well, at least that money comes from the business, so only indirectly
from their customers/clients, whereas politicians' money comes directly
from taxpayers, especially from the poorer ones who can't access tax
loopholes.

There is only one wallet.

Ours.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
  #577  
Old September 25th 17, 12:12 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.usage.english,alt.windows7.general
Robert Bannister[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)

On 25/9/17 1:56 am, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-09-22 19:16, Robert Bannister wrote:
On 22/9/17 7:28 am, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-09-21 19:25, Robert Bannister wrote:

[...]
That is the part the really sticks in my throat: they get these 7
figure jobs as a figurehead while they are still receiving thousands
of taxpayers' money in superannuation.

While "private" business people get several times that much. That's
what stick in my throat.


Well, at least that money comes from the business, so only indirectly
from their customers/clients, whereas politicians' money comes
directly from taxpayers, especially from the poorer ones who can't
access tax loopholes.


So you think when you indirectly pay a CEO $10,000,000, that's OK, While
directly paying an MP $150,000 is not?


More or less, yes. I'm a socialist, not a communist. I do, however,
object to them receiving $10m "bonuses", especially when the share price
has gone down. Once, I used to believe that nobody deserved to be paid
more than or even as much as a thousand times what the lowest paid
worker received, but then I realised that entertainers (which includes
so-called sportsmen and -women) will always get what the market dictates
and that there is no way of controlling this without totalitarian
government.


There is only one wallet.

Ours.


Precisely. Keep that in mind next time you read the business pages.



--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
  #578  
Old September 25th 17, 07:08 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.usage.english,alt.windows7.general
Rich Ulrich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 07:12:09 +0800, Robert Bannister
wrote:

On 25/9/17 1:56 am, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-09-22 19:16, Robert Bannister wrote:
On 22/9/17 7:28 am, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-09-21 19:25, Robert Bannister wrote:

[...]
That is the part the really sticks in my throat: they get these 7
figure jobs as a figurehead while they are still receiving thousands
of taxpayers' money in superannuation.

While "private" business people get several times that much. That's
what stick in my throat.

Well, at least that money comes from the business, so only indirectly
from their customers/clients, whereas politicians' money comes
directly from taxpayers, especially from the poorer ones who can't
access tax loopholes.


So you think when you indirectly pay a CEO $10,000,000, that's OK, While
directly paying an MP $150,000 is not?


More or less, yes. I'm a socialist, not a communist. I do, however,
object to them receiving $10m "bonuses", especially when the share price
has gone down. Once, I used to believe that nobody deserved to be paid
more than or even as much as a thousand times what the lowest paid
worker received, but then I realised that entertainers (which includes
so-called sportsmen and -women) will always get what the market dictates
and that there is no way of controlling this without totalitarian
government.


Or, tax it. - When Ronald Reagan was president of his labor union,
the income tax rate was 91% on that portion of income above
some cutoff. The only people who /paid/ that much were a couple
of champion boxers and a few members of his union, the Screen
Actors Guild. That was the 1950s, when labor unions were strong
and the U.S. economy had its best performance ever.

I liked the commentary that blamed those friendships with stars
for Reagan's bias against taxing wealth.

I don't have any fixed opinion on what entertainers should earn, or
keep after taxes. I concluded a dozen years ago that anyone who
whose corporate job paid over $1 million was probably breaking the
law if he earned it (blood money), or else was screwing his company.
Since then, I've tentatively raised that acceptable level to, maybe,
$3 million -- not for a good reason, but because so many CEOs get
that much.



There is only one wallet.

Ours.


Precisely. Keep that in mind next time you read the business pages.


--
Rch Ulrich
  #579  
Old September 26th 17, 12:06 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.usage.english,alt.windows7.general
Robert Bannister[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default Speak a ommon spelling error list (hints on demand)

On 25/9/17 2:08 pm, Rich Ulrich wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 07:12:09 +0800, Robert Bannister
wrote:

On 25/9/17 1:56 am, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-09-22 19:16, Robert Bannister wrote:
On 22/9/17 7:28 am, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-09-21 19:25, Robert Bannister wrote:
[...]
That is the part the really sticks in my throat: they get these 7
figure jobs as a figurehead while they are still receiving thousands
of taxpayers' money in superannuation.

While "private" business people get several times that much. That's
what stick in my throat.

Well, at least that money comes from the business, so only indirectly
from their customers/clients, whereas politicians' money comes
directly from taxpayers, especially from the poorer ones who can't
access tax loopholes.

So you think when you indirectly pay a CEO $10,000,000, that's OK, While
directly paying an MP $150,000 is not?


More or less, yes. I'm a socialist, not a communist. I do, however,
object to them receiving $10m "bonuses", especially when the share price
has gone down. Once, I used to believe that nobody deserved to be paid
more than or even as much as a thousand times what the lowest paid
worker received, but then I realised that entertainers (which includes
so-called sportsmen and -women) will always get what the market dictates
and that there is no way of controlling this without totalitarian
government.


Or, tax it. - When Ronald Reagan was president of his labor union,
the income tax rate was 91% on that portion of income above
some cutoff. The only people who /paid/ that much were a couple
of champion boxers and a few members of his union, the Screen
Actors Guild. That was the 1950s, when labor unions were strong
and the U.S. economy had its best performance ever.


This is another problem: the people "earning" the most often pay the
least tax either because they can afford really clever accountants or
because, like our Prime Minister, they keep their money in an offshore
tax haven... or both.


I liked the commentary that blamed those friendships with stars
for Reagan's bias against taxing wealth.

I don't have any fixed opinion on what entertainers should earn, or
keep after taxes. I concluded a dozen years ago that anyone who
whose corporate job paid over $1 million was probably breaking the
law if he earned it (blood money), or else was screwing his company.
Since then, I've tentatively raised that acceptable level to, maybe,
$3 million -- not for a good reason, but because so many CEOs get
that much.



There is only one wallet.

Ours.

Precisely. Keep that in mind next time you read the business pages.




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




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.