I just read another story where the author continually used the word that when the context makes it clear he means than - I don't know why this is so hard for some people. However, it is a word swap I often see done by US indie authors.
typo edit
when I find the next one I'll TRY to remember to post it, but the last one was a character saying something along the lines of:
'The Sioux are more of a danger that the Pawnee.'
Example please.
I don't have an example, but it's a common error. Very common. I don't believe it's limited to Americans though.
If it happens once, it's a typo. If it happens repeatedly in the same story it suggests a bigger problem. Even if it started as a typo, the author should have caught it during editing. Or are people just writing a stream of consciousness and posting it without even looking at it a second time?
That just looks like a a typo then.
since it happened several times, and always in the same context, it was clearly more than a simple typo.
I just read another story where the author continually used the word that when the context makes he clear he means than
It's difficult to argue for the need not to make common typos when your argument contains one of your own. If anything, he probably needs another editor, but then again, that's a common enough thing to overlook.
Since it's something the author is consistently making a mistake with (like a certain author with "hte"), you should point it out. At the least, if the author knows it's an ongoing problem, they could do a few global search and replaces, and hopefully learn to recognize when they repeat it in the future.
That said, I don't recall ever making that mistake myself, so other than similar letters, I'm not sure it's such a common error.
Since it's something the author is consistently making a mistake with, you should point it out.
I agree with CW. Tell them if they may not know the correct word.
It does seem incredible anyone could get two such commonly words confused.
My guess is their ethnic background has an almost silent 't' sound.
Indonesian/Malay is one such language. For example, when they translated the English word 'contract' into their language they spelled it 'kontrak', which locals often read and pronounce with the second 'k' silent.
I'm not sure it's such a common error.
I make that error all the time when typing content. I fix most of those errors when editing, but I have also noted a few that I missed; sometimes they are pointed out to me by a reader.
I have seen that particular error, and others, in many stories, and have often pointed it out to the author as feedback.
Unfortunately, there are a few authors who refuse to accept feedback and have no listed email address. I like their stories' plots, but the grammatical errors and structure errors make reading their works frustrating. In at least one case, I now refuse to read anything they post.
Unfortunately, there are a few authors who refuse to accept feedback and have no listed email address. I like their stories' plots, but the grammatical errors and structure errors make reading their works frustrating. In at least one case, I now refuse to read anything they post.
I used to copy everything I read on SOL to a WORD document so I could correct it as I read, the various annoying typos bothering me so much. Especially for stories I knew I'd like to read again. I've largely given that up as a humongous time waste, largely because the authors rarely care about making their works better.
Maybe the word is "hate" without the "a".
Or, for that matter, "Hatteras" without the 2 "a"s, the extra "t", the "s" and the extra "e". :)
(like a certain author with "hte")
that's a common typo for 'the, my common typo for the is 'teh' don't know why. But it doesn't happen every time I use the word 'the.'
that's a common typo for 'the, my common typo for the is 'teh' don't know why. But it doesn't happen every time I use the word 'the.'
Sorry, I should have researched your lost history of messages for the proper misspelling. :D
My point is, misspellings happen, and often, they aren't caught. You can fume, or you can try to educate the author. Like you, if they commonly make the same mistake, it's something they can learn to correct before posting. However, if the author never learns from their mistakes, then all bets are off! Repeated typos are a distraction which often degrades one's enjoyment of a story.
My point is, misspellings happen, and often, they aren't caught.
true, but even very common typos have situations where the person gets it right - thus, when every time they use the word it's the wrong word for that context, then it's a lot more than a typo and is a deliberate action by them, often in error or ignorance - which is the case I mention. I only mentioned it because I've seen a few authors who do it on a consistent basis, and I wonder if it's part of the education system they grew up in or another of that 'drug' - 'dove' local usage type things we've discussed in the past.
typo edit -sue/use
Interesting question, Ernest, but not one I'm sure I can answer. I doubt it's tied to education or regionalisms, as it's not that common, even though it's shared between several authors. I can't see anyone training someone to confuse "that" and "than", instead it's likely to be, like in your case, a matter of simple muscle memory and which fingers you've learned to type together (maybe it's tied to a lack of training in how to type properly?).
I used to copy everything I read on SOL to a WORD document
I had a similar thought. I might do it, if the author responded to my feedback and asked for an edited chapter as an example of what I thought their errors were. But the bottom line to me is they would be better off getting a good editor to help them.
I haven't seen that particular mistake enough to notice, but what I see ALL THE TIME is 'then' instead of 'than'. It's my number one peeve. Apparently, they have stopped teaching grammar world-wide. It won't get picked up by spell-check, either, since it IS an actual word, spelled correctly, just used incorrectly. It's embarrassing when done by a 12 year old, and tragic when done by anyone that pretends to be a writer.
However, if the author never learns from their mistakes, then all bets are off! Repeated typos are a distraction which often degrades one's enjoyment of a story.
There's a series of books by an author that gets great scores, and I have been forced to stop reading his work because he CONTINUALLY uses 'too' when it should be 'to'. I cannot fathom how someone can write thousands and thousands of words, in multiple books, and continue to screw up a two-letter word.
Maybe it's just me.
'then' instead of 'than'.
That's the error I was referring to when I said I saw it all the time. Going back to the OP, it's not "that" and "than."
For that versus than, I started wondering if it might be a left-handed/right-handed thing. Your dominant hand determining which word you foul up.
I had a similar thought. I might do it, if the author responded to my feedback and asked for an edited chapter as an example of what I thought their errors were.
Actually, I did it for myself, because I hated seeing all the frequent typos in most stories. Occasionally I'd pass them along, after suggesting one or two to gauge whether authors were interested, but that's relatively rare.
I eventually gave it up mostly because I had less time to read, more pressing items on my desk, and few online authors (aside from a strategic few) seemed to care.
what I see ALL THE TIME is 'then' instead of 'than'.
That's another one I often see, but I've seen it so often I usually just read through it now.
I haven't seen that particular mistake enough to notice, but what I see ALL THE TIME is 'then' instead of 'than'. It's my number one peeve. Apparently, they have stopped teaching grammar world-wide.
That was my point earlier. Whereas I rarely see "that" and "than" confused, I frequently see "then" and "than" confused (i.e. it's a much more common error). But again, I doubt it has anything to do with their education, instead it seems to be more muscle memory related. Just as Ernest types 'teh' for 'the'. I seriously doubt anyone in Australia ever taught him that, it's just how he learned to type years ago. I'm guessing as they began teaching keyboarding, more people began making identical typos as they were taught similar typing patterns. (I was taught 'touch typing' on the old-fashioned typewriters (the later electronic versions) years ago, so my errors are at least a little different than most younger authors.
As far as repeat editors, the best I can suggest is to volunteer to edit (temporarily) for him. Maybe seeing every misspelling highlighted in red, again and again, will finally strike home just how common the problem is for him. But then again, to miss is that much, supposedly with editorial help, hasn't had much of an impact yet.
For that versus than, I started wondering if it might be a left-handed/right-handed thing. Your dominant hand determining which word you foul up.
Except, all the letters are on the left-hand side of the keyboard. There's no switching of hands. In fact, the "t" is on an upper row, while the "n" is on the lower one.
Just out of curiosity, we should challenge all the SOL authors to use a dvorak and determine whether the number of typos increases or decreases. Seriously, it's a friggin' embarrassment to the worldwide educational system that we continue to use keyboards designed in the 19th century when the main issue in the design was preventing swinging type from striking one another. Still, after lamenting the failure of the American system for decades, I've never once tried one myself. It's easier to lament than to challenge oneself!!
Ernest types 'teh' for 'the'. I seriously doubt anyone in Australia ever taught him that, it's just how he learned to type years ago.
Actually, it's only a problem that's developed in the last decade due to an injury. My hands and and their fingers do not work at the same speed now. There is a slight discrepancy that causes typos when one hand works a tad faster than the other, thus the letters accessed by the different hands will sometimes get hit in the wrong order, despite what my brain has told them to do. The more I'm concentrating on what I want to type instead of the actual keys, the more likely I'll get a typo because I don't slow the one hand down to accommodate the other.
The way it works is I tell the right hand to hit the letter 'u' and the left hand to hit the letter 's' then the letter 'e' - but what happens is the left hits the 's' before the right hits the 'u' followed by the left hitting the letter 'e' - so I end up typing 'sue' instead of 'use.' The same things happens with the word 'the' left hand 't' then right hand 'h' followed by left hand 'e' - but the actual strike orders comes out as 't' - 'e' - 'h'
NB: I do not use the touch type system they teach in schools. I'm self taught from a time when they did not let males attend typing classes but I had to use a manual typewriter for four to five hours every day - so I developed my own 'three fingered walk the keyboard' touch typing system. For many years my accurate typing speed was in 120 to 150 word range - I can still type words that fast, but some will have the 'misfire' issue with them.
dvorak and determine whether the number of typos increases or decreases.
don't know what it's like in the US or UK, but Dvorak keyboards are scarcer than hen's teeth in Australia.
For many years my accurate typing speed was in 120 to 150 word range - I can still type words that fast, but some will have the 'misfire' issue with them.
I had the touch type training, but that brings it's own issues. Because I also learned 'speed reading' in high-school, I tend to read sentences as a whole, rather than reading each letter. You can read faster that way, but you tend to fill in the details, whether the details (like "to" and "too", or "and" and "hte") are there or not.
Still, at 200+ words a minute (last I checked, decades ago), I can crank out a LOT of text (which came in handy when I was a coder, years ago). Due to my efforts to catch my own typos, I haven't allowed myself to speed read in a long time, which results in my hardly reading much anymore. :(
authors to use a dvorak
Not for those of us who learned to touch-type on the old keyboard. Relearning would be harder than converting the U.S. to the metric system.
I haven't seen that particular mistake enough to notice, but what I see ALL THE TIME is 'then' instead of than..... It's embarrassing when done by a 12 year old, and tragic when done by anyone that pretends to be a writer.
In the UK we have the problem of English (and other) teachers whose grasp of our version of the language is abysmal. I would expect that error and spelling errors to be normal
There's a series of books by an author that gets great scores, and I have been forced to stop reading his work because he CONTINUALLY uses 'too' when it should be 'to'. I cannot fathom how someone can write thousands and thousands of words, in multiple books, and continue to screw up a two-letter word.
I've seen that - I think he uses a spell check and doesn't understand
Not for those of us who learned to touch-type on the old keyboard. Relearning would be harder than converting the U.S. to the metric system.
I don't know the dvorjak. However I was brought up with the QWERTY keyboard but have changed my laptop to AZERTY which, usually, is far better. I also have keys to mark paragraphs whether where the marker is or below/above
Just two problems - the @ is numeral zero on the letter keyboard whilst depressing Alt Gr and I have the bad habit of upper key to do the " so I get the number 3 instead. Otherwise far faster.
Except, all the letters are on the left-hand side of the keyboard.
Not sure what type of keyboard you use but on mine "T" is left hand upper row and "N" is right hand lower row.
I also have keys to mark paragraphs whether where the marker is or below/above
A key to "mark paragraphs"? You mean like: "this is something I want to read" or "This needs to be edited by next Thursday? What does that even mean?
Personally, I've always HATED function keys, as they rarely do as advertised, and even when they occasionally do, they continually reset themselves, so they'll cease working at the most inopportune times. While I don't trust function keys, I DO trust myself to do the same things, which is definitely more reliable. Damn automation! Bring on the computer revolution! It'll last all of 30 minutes before it resets itself and they all quit working in the middle of their annihilation of the human race. We'll all have tea and biscuits in the three hours it requires to reboot itself, it'll start again, only to hang indefinitely again. Terminator my ass!
Note: In case you can't tell, I've just wasted 4 hours of my life trying to get my banks website to transfer money to a trusted site, something I've been doing for years. I eventually sent it using PP, which eventually gets there, but at least that method works.
Not sure what type of keyboard you use but on mine "T" is left hand upper row and "N" is right hand lower row.
Duh! You're right. Don't know what I was thinking. It's quite a stretch using my left forefinger (other than to pick my nose, that is).
Stretching our hands is just practice for stretching our imaginations. :)
However most of the "typo" are same hand errors, which essentially shot down my idea of left-right.
Not sure what type of keyboard you use but on mine "T" is left hand upper row and "N" is right hand lower row.
I took it to mean the 'e' and the 'a' were both on the left half of the keyboard
A key to "mark paragraphs"? You mean like: "this is something I want to read" or "This needs to be edited by next Thursday? What does that even mean?
I use it for copying / deleting
Personally, I've always HATED function keys, as they rarely do as advertised, and even when they occasionally do, they continually reset themselves, so they'll cease working at the most inopportune times. While I don't trust function keys
I hate them too - for example the speaker key works sometimes and migrates. As for the bottom margin near the right the bloody keyboard language changes so I find I am typing unintentional gibberish instead of intentional rubbish
Not sure what type of keyboard you use but on mine "T" is left hand upper row and "N" is right hand lower row.
T is second row down (excluding function keys), 5 from left. N is bottom row right just next left of ? over , (comma) and right of B
To agree with Crumbly Writer my letters are on left side BUT numerals (top row) are upper case to grammatical marks like & é~ "# '{ etc
I took it to mean the 'e' and the 'a' were both on the left half of the keyboard
E is top row 3rd from left, A first key on that row from left ( AZERTYUIOP¨£ )
E is top row 3rd from left, A first key on that row from left ( AZERTYUIOP¨£ )
In the U.S., it's ( AZERTYUIOP[] ). The $ is "< shift>7", while the double quote sign is just before the < Enter> key.
correct. I was thinking of upper row of the 3 alpha character rows relative to the home row (third row down).
Minor nit, but it is QZERTYUIOP
Standard keyboard for US would be QWERTYUIOP[] (Z is on the bottom row.
Z is on the bottom row.
Yep. That's what I get for copy and paste to correct the first letter. If we are going to include the square brackets, let's not forget the far right key of that row is the backslash.
Z is on the bottom row.
Yep. That's what I get for copy and paste to correct the first letter. If we are going to include the square brackets, let's not forget the far right key of that row is the backslash.
Yep. That's what I get for copy and paste to correct the first letter. If we are going to include the square brackets, let's not forget the far right key of that row is the backslash.
Like New York, if something's worth saying once, it's worth saying again!
But Americans pronounce it Noo York, so it's not worth saying properly even once. :)
AJ
But Americans pronounce it Noo York, so it's not worth saying properly even once.
That's the way kids from Jersey (Frank Sinatra) imitate a New York (Brooklyn) accent. Sadly, his rendition was so popular, every singer and comedian ever since imitates his bad imitation.
But Americans pronounce it Noo York
Okay, I was raised in NYC, but New is pronounced Noo everywhere. From dictionary.com
new
[noo, nyoo]
Okay, I was raised in NYC, but New is pronounced Noo everywhere. From dictionary.com
new
[noo, nyoo]
Manhattanites and the rest of the world pronounce it "nyoo", emphasizing the soft "e" sound. New Jerseyites and people in Brooklyn pronounce it "noo", similar to the noise cows make. A combination of the Jersey and Brooklyn accents emphasize the "noo" sound, making it especially distinctive.
In the U.S., it's ( AZERTYUIOP[] ). The $ is "< shift>7", while the double quote sign is just before the < Enter> key.
My [ and ] are 6 keys apart as option numeral row keys (ie use Alt Gr to use). The $ is lower case to £ and ¤ between ^and ¨¨ with enter key to right.
Just goes to show there are umpteen different keyboards probably based on language.
ISTR QWERTY was copied from the old UK typewriter and that was designed based on letter use frequency
QWERTY was copied from the old UK typewriter and that was designed based on letter use frequency
Here's the link to a free epub about it
http://www.lulu.com/shop/ernest-bywater/social-inertia-keyboards/ebook/product-23024333.html
How do Americans pronounce that teenage cry of disgust, "Ewwwwww!". If it's pronounced "Ooooooo", it rather loses its impact :(
AJ
How do Americans pronounce that teenage cry of disgust, "Ewwwwww!"
It's generally pronounced like the proper term for a female sheep (ewe)
It's generally pronounced like the proper term for a female sheep
You mean "Missy" (or even "Sheila", for our Aussie pals).
OK, let the catcalls begin.
You mean "Missy" (or even "Sheila", for our Aussie pals).
I thought Sheila was for crocodiles. :)
@awnlee jawking
How do Americans pronounce that teenage cry of disgust, "Ewwwwww!"
I pronounce it "throat-warbling mangrove".
I pronounce it "throat-warbling mangrove".
Do you ever have problems seeking directions to Nthroat-warbling mangrove York? :)
AJ
Do you ever have problems seeking directions to Nthroat-warbling mangrove York? :)
Nope, since I walked the entire island of Manhattan, and frequently visited friends and family in Brooklyn, the Bronx and Staten Island, I never had to ask anyone where to find anything. ;)
Brooklyn, the Bronx and Staten Island,
I'll test your NY IQ.
The 5 boroughs making up NYC are Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx.
Why is there a the in front of the Bronx borough?
Why is there a the in front of the Bronx borough?
For the same reason there's a 'the' in front of the Ukraine? ;)
AJ
For the same reason there's a 'the' in front of the Ukraine?
You can say, "I visited Ukraine" but not "I visited Bronx."
No idea about the Bronx, but otherwise isn't "The" usually used when it was originally (or still) a conglomeration of smaller entities rather than one area?
a conglomeration of smaller entities rather than one area
That's not the case with the Bronx
Why is there a the in front of the Bronx borough?
My guess is that it clarifies what is meant by Bronx.
Bronx can be used in several ways. By specifying The Bronx, you indicate you are referring to one of the boroughs.
By specifying The Bronx, you indicate you are referring to one of the boroughs.
Then it would be "the Brooklyn" and "the Queens" but it's simply Brooklyn and Queens (and Manhattan and Staten Island). Only the Bronx has a "the" in front of it.
It may well be.
Looking at various etymological authorities, that may be true of the Bronx too. Various local features had Bronx in their names, including the original homestead set up by the family after whom it was named, and several units were subsequently subsumed into the territory eventually forming the Bronx as it is today.
It seems the original name was 'the Bronx', as in "I'm going to visit the Smiths", then it seems to have become just 'Bronx' then it reverted to 'the Bronx' when all the other bits were bolted on.
That's assuming the authorities google directed me to actually knew what they were talking about.
AJ
Why is there a the in front of the Bronx borough?
It's how the differentiate between the borough and the county, which cover the same area.
The area was originally named for the river which was named for a the first white to farm that area.
The Bronx.
It had to do with a settler in the 1600s named Bronck. He named the river next to his farm the Bronck's River.
Bronck was later changed to Bronx so it became the Bronx River.
I've heard three stories about why the "the" is there. One is people used to say, I'm going to the Bronck's" (which became the Bronx). Another is people used to say, I'm going to the Bronx river" (later shortened to the Bronx). I also heard when NYC acquired it they named it after the river so it was the Borough of the Bronx river which was shorted to the Borough of the Bronx or "the Bronx."
It seems the original name was 'the Bronx', as in "I'm going to visit the Smiths", then it seems to have become just 'Bronx' then it reverted to 'the Bronx' when all the other bits were bolted on.
I believe the name was always Bronx, but no one there pronounces it that way. Instead they all say "The Bronx". It's a matter of formal vs. informal names. As you say, there are multiple "Bronx" bits, but there are only one Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island or Queens.
However, Ernest's point is the ultimate reason. "The Bronx" is easier than saying "Bronx in the Bronx" (which doesn't sound nearly as nice as "New York, New York!")
Bronx in the Bronx
Bonks in the Bronx would be a good name for a stroke story. Nipples like pencil erasers, anyone? :)
AJ
Bonks in the Bronx would be a good name for a stroke story. Nipples like pencil erasers, anyone? :)
It doesn't have the same erotic connotation (unoriginality?), but "Brooklyn in the Bronx" makes a much better title, whatever the plot contains.
I've heard three stories about why the "the" is there.
Stating what people used to say does not explain why they added "the" in front of "Bronx".
From a Wikipedia article on "The Bronx"
The use of the definite article is attributed to the style of referring to rivers.[27][28] Another explanation for the use of the definite article in the borough's name is that the original form of the name was a possessive or collective one referring to the family, as in visiting "The Broncks", "The Bronck's" or "The Broncks'".[29]
It sounds to me as if there is no answer to your question that can be substantiated by fact. While the above sounds logical, it and everything I've found has been opinion.
The use of the definite article is attributed to the style of referring to rivers.[27][28] Another explanation for the use of the definite article in the borough's name is that the original form of the name was a possessive or collective one referring to the family, as in visiting "The Broncks", "The Bronck's" or "The Broncks'".[29]
When I was a kid I heard it was from "I'm visiting the Broncks" and later it was changed to Bronx. But then I heard the one about the Bronx river.
I heard it was
Yeah, probably at least a dozen variations as to why.
I was trying to figure out what was special enough to warrant the use of "the" with Bronx. I came up with a couple but shot my own ideas down.
I was trying to figure out what was special enough to warrant the use of "the" with Bronx. I came up with a couple but shot my own ideas down.
I still prefer the inherent conflict of "Bronx" residing within "Bronx". Adding "the" distinguished one from the other. You often hear "New York, New York" together, but "Bronx, Bronx" doesn't have the same ring, mainly because everyone recognizes the city as "New York" first, and as an entire state second. With the Bronx, there's not as clear a separation.
I still prefer the inherent conflict of "Bronx" residing within "Bronx".
I understand that the Bronx is divided into several segments (none named simply Bronx), but to my knowledge there is not a Bronx within the Bronx.
to my knowledge there is not a Bronx within the Bronx.
There's not.
I was born and lived in Brooklyn so my address was Brooklyn, New York. If I had lived in the Bronx it would be Bronx, NY. Would anyone address an envelop to Manhattan, NY or would it be NY, NY? It's Queens, NY and Staten Island, NY, but what about addresses in Manhattan?
As to "the" Bronx, I still believe it was when people said they were going to visit the Broncks or Bronck's river.
As to Bronck being changed to Bronx, I always thought it was the Broncks sound, but I've been Googling it since this started and they said it was changed to Bronx during a period where they were trying to simplify spelling in America. The example used was the Chicago White Sox (instead of Socks), but I think that's stretching it.
I still believe
I don't have an opinion as to which is right.
Others hold conflicting opinions with no way to prove their opinion is correct. Holding to an opinion when no proof has been presented that it is wrong, is a good thing in my opinion.
Others hold conflicting opinions with no way to prove their opinion is correct. Holding to an opinion when no proof has been presented that it is wrong, is a good thing in my opinion.
When in doubt, stick with what you've always done. If the majority of people in New York City refer to it as "The Bronx", I'm happy using the form most recognize.
By the way, I'm surprised everyone got so worked up over an innocent question about a word choice in a response. The origin of the phrase, completely unknown, hardly matters. After all, it's not like using "than" when you really mean "that". Now THAN really annoys me!!!!! ;D
After all, it's not like using "than" when you really mean "that". Now THAN really annoys me!!!!! ;D
You could care less ;)
AJ
You could care less ;)
Actually, I'm clueless on the techniques required to construct decent puns. Instead, I take the easy out by picking the most obvious balls to swing at, using my own cliched analogy. :)
Is that what they mean by 'the pencil test'? ;)
That's more to do with the degrees of 'pencil enclosures' :-)
As one of the guilty writers, the problem is in my fingers. Even though I know that I want to use THAN, my fingers type THAT.
I generally go through each chapter of a story before letting my editors at it, using the search function to look at each instance where the word THAT is used, usually finding several instances where I typed it wrong. My editors seem to take great pride in finding even more instances that I missed.
So, it's not an issue of not knowing the difference, but in fingers that seem to prefer "T" to "N."
My editors seem to take great pride in finding even more instances that I missed.
All editors take great pride in finding any errors. What makes it interesting is when they argue with each other about punctuation - one says put the comma here, and the other says it's wrong to have a comma there. That's when the fun begins.
I purposely didn't name any particular author, simply because doing so would start the finger pointing and I couldn't mention them all.
I purposely didn't name any particular author, simply because doing so would start the finger pointing and I couldn't mention them all.
I'd have guessed your reason for non doing than was you sued to, bun always ended up with three fingers pointing an you. ;)
I still prefer the inherent conflict of "Bronx" residing within "Bronx". Adding "the" distinguished one from the other. You often hear "New York, New York" together, but "Bronx, Bronx" doesn't have the same ring, mainly because everyone recognizes the city as "New York" first, and as an entire state second. With the Bronx, there's not as clear a separation
I (as a foreigner) think New York, New York is obvious; it distinguishes the city from the state. More puzzling is that we refer to the US (or the USA) but never to the Estados Unidos de Mexico and equally it is considered understandable to consider the US as only that country above the border.
Worse is the reference to "America" on the assumption that it does not stretch from Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Ocean
Worse is the reference to "America" on the assumption that it does not stretch from Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Ocean
Actually, it doesn't On the assumption that America is a pair of continents (North and South), then Tierra del Fuego, which is a string of islands of the south end of South America is technically not part of the continent of South America.
By that same criteria, I've heard/seen some people from the eastern shore of the Atlantic Ocean argue that the UK is not part of Europe(the continent).
some people from the eastern shore of the Atlantic Ocean argue that the UK is not part of Europe(the continent).
Do you mean to infer that it is?
;-)
Tierra del Fuego ... is technically not part of the continent of South America.
Technically, and in almost every other sense, you are a pain in the ass for many users of this forum, and a pain in the arse for the others.
Tierra del Fuego is on the continental shelf surrounding the large contiguous land mass known as South America. Same continental shelf = same continent. It was part of the single large land mass believed to have broken off from Gondwana that has become South America, and it's been a part of it every since.
You come up with this kind of pissant gotchas all the time. Do you think anyone else thinks you are clever? I have no delusions you might ever stop: finding opportunities to irritate others is obviously your raison d'être.
There may be a sense in which continent refers only to a large contiguous land mass (i.e. not including nearby islands), but there are other senses which do include such islands. For example, geologists would not consider current sea levels relevant. To them if islands have been connected to the mainland during geologically recent times, they would consider them part of the same continent.
There was absolutely nothing to justify you pontificating to @sejintenej in such an antagonistic manner that their use was incorrect.
I'm sure nobody, not even you, had any doubts about the meaning of their words. That is what matters to the rest of us here, and it should be the only thing that matters.
Actually, it doesn't On the assumption that America is a pair of continents (North and South), then Tierra del Fuego, which is a string of islands of the south end of South America is technically not part of the continent of South America.
By that reasoning the Florida Keys are 'technically not part of the continent of" North America.
By that reasoning the Florida Keys are 'technically not part of the continent of" North America.
Over the years I've heard a lot about the Florida Keys, but no one ever says a thing about the Florida Locks they operate.
Over the years I've heard a lot about the Florida Keys, but no one ever says a thing about the Florida Locks they operate.
The locks are on the Mississippi river. We just store the keys in Florida.
The locks are on the Mississippi river. We just store the keys in Florida.
If they're Mississippi Locks shouldn't they be the Mississippi Keys ?
Worse is the reference to "America" on the assumption that it does not stretch from Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Ocean
Actually, it doesn't On the assumption that America is a pair of continents (North and South), then Tierra del Fuego, which is a string of islands of the south end of South America is technically not part of the continent of South America.
By that same criteria, I've heard/seen some people from the eastern shore of the Atlantic Ocean argue that the UK is not part of Europe(the continent).
and by your criterium Nantucket and the Florida Keys are not part of America.
What you missed was my moan that people refer to America meaning the USA to the exclusion of everywhere else north and south of it.
As for the UK not being part of Europe (geographically), so what? By that line of thought we have to throw away Ireland, the Canary Islands,the Azores, Corsica, Sardinia, Hyéres ..... I leave it to you to do battle with the IRA, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy ...
Ross at Play; thanks for the support
Ross at Play; thanks for the support
You're welcome. This might be the first time I've seen @DS not going to almost any lengths to have the last word after being challenged about one of his pathetic little gotchas. He suddenly went very quiet. But I know he's there! He has made posts on the Editors/Reviewers Hangout in the days since my harangue.
I do have a quibble with your insistence that it is wrong to use 'America' when meaning USA. I think there are contexts where that is valid.
My philosophy is it's always acceptable for speakers to find abbreviated or simpler ways to express ideas - provided they can be certain their listeners understand. I think that is equally acceptable when writing, but much more care is required to be certain readers will understand; writers lack the ability to use inflections of the voice to clarify their meaning, and receive no feedback from listeners to confirm they have understood.
You noted that people always say 'Mexico' when they mean 'Estados Unidos de Mexico'. That is routine practice when naming every country in the world, i.e. to shorten the official title of countries to word(s) that uniquely identify the country you mean.
When that is done to 'USA' the result is 'America', which is an anomaloy. It's the only abbreviated country name which can also refer to an entire continent (except for Australia, but that cannot cause any ambiguity because there are no other countries on it's continent).
I DO NOT think the pre-existence of another meaning for an expression should preclude an additional use as something resulting from the way speakers typically manipulate words when speaking. It should, however, be a warning to speakers that before using it they should ensure the context is established so listeners will understand which of the possible meanings is intended.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to use 'America' when meaning 'USA' provided the speaker has already established the name they will use is going to be the name of a country.
For example, with written language (when there is a need to take care to avoid ambiguity) I would regard ...
* this as correct: Among all countries in the world, America is unique.
* this as wrong: America is unique. Among all the countries in the world, it ...
I would regard this as suspect: America is unique among all countries in the world. To be correct, readers must understand from the preceding context when they read the word 'America' that it is the name of a country.
BTW, I don't agree with your use of 'America' to mean from Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Circle. I would refer to that as 'the Americas', to be clear I was including both North and South America.
Where's the 'Like' button?
Technically, and in almost every other sense, you are a pain in the ass for many users of this forum, and a pain in the arse for the others.
Oh, and in referring to all of North and South America (which includes such insignificant islands like Cuba, Puerto Rico, and others ...), since it's plural this isn't a deer case, it's The Americas would be correct usage.
Where's the 'Like' button?
There's isn't one, because this is not an anti-social media site like FarceBook, or Nitwitter, or LabotamiedIn, etc.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to use 'America' when meaning 'USA' provided the speaker has already established the name they will use is going to be the name of a country.
For example, with written language (when there is a need to take care to avoid ambiguity) I would regard ...
* this as correct: Among all countries in the world, America is unique.
* this as wrong: America is unique. Among all the countries in the world, it ...
I would regard this as suspect: America is unique among all countries in the world. To be correct, readers must understand from the preceding context when they read the word 'America' that it is the name of a country.
A clear well fashioned reply. I agree with the above which encapsulates your argument but all too often the speaker fails to indicate or suggest that he or she is referring to the US of A.
I prefer to refer to the US or USA in speech because it has fewer syllables than America when the context is known.
America v Americas. Sorry; I'm much too old. At school we were taught that there are five continents - Australasia, Asia, Europe, Antarctica and America. Of course since then (the old version of) America has been torn asunder.
I smile at StarFleetCarl's reference to Cuba being an insignificant island when it was once within hours of blowing the USA apart. ;)
I smile at StarFleetCarl's reference to Cuba being an insignificant island when it was once within hours of blowing the USA apart. ;)
I half expected that to be picked up and expanded on by our australian writers, but it appears none of them live on the uncivilized island north of Bass Strait. ;)
(Hey - that is what my unadopted daughter always said, and she was from Moonah, so I trusted her judgement!)
(Hey - that is what my unadopted daughter always said, and she was from Moonah, so I trusted her judgement!)
Wow; it's a small world if she was born in Moonah between 35 and 15 years ago.....
BTW, I don't agree with your use of 'America' to mean from Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Circle. I would refer to that as 'the Americas', to be clear I was including both North and South America.
And don't forget Central America which refers to the strip of land that joins North America to South America. However, the fact they are referred to as North and South indicates they should be seen as one unit, and the general term America should be referring to them both.
BTW: Cuba, Puerto Rico, and all those other islands around there are in the area known as the Caribbean and not officially part of North America, South America, or Central America. Despite that, many people include them when speaking of the Americas as a whole.
However, the fact they are referred to as North and South indicates they should be seen as one unit, and the general term America should be referring to them both.
I agree with you that most of the time when there is something called North Whatever and something else called called South Whatever, then the name Whatever would refer to the combination of the two.
I find it impossible to think of North and South America as a single unit. To me, they are two distinct land masses that have been migrating independently across the earth's surface, and are currently colliding with each other.
However, I concede others are entitled to see them as a single unit.
I will take back what I said that I "don't agree" with the use of America. Applying my own argument above, as long as someone has established the name they will use refers to continental masses, then America can only mean what I would call The Americas.
I still "prefer" to use The Americas. To me, it identifies a combination of two distinct units, which geologically they are. It also has the advantage of being unambiguous in all circumstances.
Cuba, Puerto Rico, and all those other islands around there are in the area known as the Caribbean and not officially part of North America, South America, or Central America.
For much of the world's population the only "official" authority that matters to them is FIFA. ;)
FIFA has the Caribbean combined with North and Central America to form the CONCACAF Federation.
So, for most of the world, the USA is merely one of those irrelevant countries to the north of South America, one of the only two continents which are relevant, with the other being Europe.
I still "prefer" to use The Americas. To me, it identifies a combination of two distinct units, which geologically they are. It also has the advantage of being unambiguous in all circumstances.
When I was at school they used the term Americas to refer to - North America (Canada, Mexico, & USA), South America (Colombia, Venezuela, plus all points south of them), and Central America (Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rico, Panama) - I still think of them that way. Which is why I try to avoid the term America since there really isn't an America as such. Kind of like there's a North Dakota and a South Dakota but no Dakota.
edit to add:
The USA isn't the largest country in North America, Canada is by over 100,000 sq kms - Canada 9,984,670 total sq kms - USA 9,833,517 total sq kms. The USA has 323,995,528 people est as July 2016 - Canada has 35,362,905 people est as July 2016 - the USA just has more people in it. Those figures are from the CIA book of facts and I'm not sure if the population counts includes illegals or not.
Which is why I try to avoid the term America
Fair enough.
However, let's not be critical of others just because they use the term America. Let's wait until they are not specific about which of the possible meanings they intend when using the term - and then heap shit all over them! ;)
Are Americans exempt from this shitheaping? I've just been researching American patriotic songs and most of them mention America without disambiguating it from the pair of continents. The Star-Spangled Banner is an exception - it doesn't make any mention of the country it's referring to.
I suspect that using the term 'America' for any other meaning than the US is vanishingly rare.
AJ
Are Americans exempt from this shitheaping?
Most definitely not! Shitheaping on Americans is the second most popular sport in the world, is it not, after football? They clearly think they live on another planet when they gives names such as World Series and Superbowl to contests in sports nobody else gives a damn about ... but did they have to elect an alien as there president to prove it?
I suspect that using the term 'America' for any other meaning than the US is vanishingly rare.
If we are going to post hundreds of messages about the correct use or non-use of commas, polyamory etc. etc. don't you think we should at least attempt to use the correct name for those 50 states?
Incidentally, Brazil is bigger than the lower 48 states plus Hawaii plus half of Alaska. OK, that is not much but the maximum distance east to west (excluding Fernando da Naronha which is a pinprick)differs from the maximum distance north to south by only 10 miles!!!
I smile at StarFleetCarl's reference to Cuba being an insignificant island when it was once within hours of blowing the USA apart. ;)
I was looking for the sarcasm button when I wrote that and couldn't find it...
BTW: Cuba, Puerto Rico, and all those other islands around there are in the area known as the Caribbean and not officially part of North America, South America, or Central America. Despite that, many people include them when speaking of the Americas as a whole.
When the hell did you study geography? The Caribbean has always been included in the definition of "North America" (for a long time, after it first discovered, no one even knew there was a full continent nearby). "Central America" was added because many (like you) only think of "North America" as the USA, Canada and Mexico, but the Caribbean is still included in any definition of "North America".
Kind of like there's a North Dakota and a South Dakota but no Dakota.
There used to be. That area used to be called the Dakota Territory, before it was split into the two states. Even now we tend to refer to it as the 'Dakotas'.
And yeah, when I was young there were three Americas - North, Central, and South. For some reason or other keeping Central America apart has gone by the wayside, and in most modern descriptions it's been absorbed into North America.
And yes, Canada physically is larger than the USA, but at the same time - who wants to live there? 75% of their population lives within 100 miles of their southern border. It's like most of Alaska, beautiful to visit, but not a nice play to live. (And I know that people DO live there - more power to them. I prefer four seasons, not cold, cold, cold, and mosquito.)
I agree with you that most of the time when there is something called North Whatever and something else called called South Whatever, then the name Whatever would refer to the combination of the two.
I have never heard anyone refer to "Dekota" or "Carolina", although they do refer to "the Carolinas".
However, as much as Canadians and Mexicans hate the idea, in most instances, when someone refers to "America", it's understood they're referring to the "United States of", as it's usually the most commonly referenced country in "The Americas" (i.e. the most notorious or infamous). In general, a safe assumption to make is, when talking to either a European or U.S. group, it's generally safe to use "America" to reference the U.S.A. Otherwise, always stipulate what you're referencing at least once so you don't confuse readers.
In cases like mine, where ALL my stories take place in North America, it's generally safe to reference "America', even though I've got many international readers. Given the context of the story, they realize the geographical constraints.
CONCACAF Federation ... Con-cough-cough who? ;)
Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football
It's a large grouping of countries that play-off for the right to send about three representatives to compete in the World Cup, the one the rest of the world cares about.
The qualifiers (usually including Mexico and USA) earn the right to play and be defeated by countries from Europe and South America.
but did they have to elect an alien as there president to prove it?
They survived that and he's now been replaced.
When the hell did you study geography? The Caribbean has always been included in the definition of "North America" (for a long time, after it first discovered, no one even knew there was a full continent nearby). "Central America" was added because many (like you) only think of "North America" as the USA, Canada and Mexico, but the Caribbean is still included in any definition of "North America".
Most of the Caribbean and all of Central America are on the same tectonic plate which is different to North America and South America - it also includes part of Mexico.
Also, the whole of the Americas were known as the New World for a long time and the first areas settled from Europe on a permanent basis started in what we now call South America and the Caribbean.
They survived that and he's now been replaced.
Lucky you. We still have at least another four years of someone who doesn't understand the Constitution, how government works, won't talk to anyone who doesn't praise his every comment, and attacks anyone and everyone who objects to his actions. Though I doubt he's an alien, no alien would ever survive that long while being so incompetent/unstable.
Most of the Caribbean and all of Central America are on the same tectonic plate which is different to North America and South America - it also includes part of Mexico.
Also, the whole of the Americas were known as the New World for a long time and the first areas settled from Europe on a permanent basis started in what we now call South America and the Caribbean.
Where they were hundreds of million years ago has little bearing on where they are now, otherwise we'd refer to everywhere as "Pangea". Do you still think Putin is in charge of the U.S.S.R?
CW,
Trump may not be worth much, but he's, by far, a much better choice than Hillary would ever make. Too bad Hillary stabbed Bernie in the back - Gary Johnson would have been better than both of Trump and Clinton, but way too many of the US voters are into the 'My party only' voting pattern for Gary to ever win.
Where they were hundreds of million years ago has little bearing on where they are now,
The Caribbean Tectonic plate still exists - and the New World designated the area only a few hundred years ago. However, since the people in the USA think of the Caribbean as being part of North America they think everyone should regard it as so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg
don't you think we should at least attempt to use the correct name for those 50 states?
In preference to what Americans themselves sing? Eg 'America the Beautiful'. :)
AJ
but he's, by far, a much better choice than Hillary
At least Hillary would not have treated the Australian PM the way Trump did.
Trump's ego will probably pit him against some country, and he will use America's military to slap down that upstart. Hillary had the experience Trump lacks.
Hillary was a bad choice for President, but Trump is even worse. I suspect Hillary knew how to lie without getting caught. Every time Trump opens his mouth what comes out deviates from known fact and he refuses to accept responsibility for his actions. Consider the recent news conference. His brag about his win being the biggest electorial win since Regan was proven wrong by the facts that both Obama and Bush won with a significantly large number of electorial votes. Trump's excuse was - Oh someone gave me the numbers.
The worst aspect of Trump seems to be that he refuses to acknowledge that he doesn't know what he is doing as President and he refuse to accept advice from those who do know what needs to be done.
Trump's ego will probably pit him against some country, and he will use America's military to slap down that upstart.
I have to admit I was pleased when Trump talked to Taiwan without asking the permission of China. I suspect he wouldn't have blithely told the Chinese they could keep Tibet, as Obama did (as though Tibet was his to give away).
Compromise is good but appeasement never works.
AJ
In preference to what Americans themselves
There are several versions of where the term came from, but the ones I know of both trace the term to Amerigo Vespucci. He was the Italian explorer who mapped the eastern coastline of what we now call South America around 1501-1502. By about 1503, he came to the realization that the newly discovered Brazil was in fact a new continent, which he called a New World. I think it was in the 1600's that the term America was coined form the Latinized version of Amerigo (Americus).
Thus AJ, it was the European community that started referring to us as Americans. We just accepted the Name. :)
Compromise is good but appeasement never works.
I agree. The problem is:
1. Obama knew how to chose his battles.
2. Trump fights every battle. Including those that he creates by publically attacking people he feels make disparaging remarks about him personally.
I have also seen it claimed that America was named after a Bristol trader and the theory gets a mention in the Wikipedia (spit!) article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_of_the_Americas.
However that doesn't challenge the assertion that the name was of European origin.
AJ
1. Obama knew how to chose his battles.
But Tibet wasn't Obama's battle! What would Obama have given away next - all the islands in the South China Sea? Taiwan? Chinese imperialism is a major problem which trading agreements and membership of the international community has done little to moderate.
AJ
Wikipedia (spit!) article
Yeah. This Wiki article says Americus discovered the New World. The Wiki article on the 'New World' describes his expedition as a voyage to map the newly discovered Brazil. The New World article seems to have a better set of references. Of course, I don't know if either set of reference are citing valid sources.
Which only goes to show we need to be very careful in using Wikipedia as a reference.
Chinese imperialism is a major problem which trading agreements and membership of the international community has done little to moderate.
I guess even a broken clock will accidentally say something truthful twice per day.
But Tibet wasn't Obama's battle!
That is precisely my point AJ.
Obama may have felt China's position regarding Tibet was wrong, but he recognized it was not his battle. If Trump was in the same position, he may well have taken issue with China and turned it into a battle.
Furthermore, you can't give away something you don't own. All too often, the US Government steps into situations to "Help" because the situation will impact our interests. But, the situation is not ours to resolve. Obama's approach was to mediate. Trump's will probably be to dominate.
he recognized it was not his battle.
He didn't have to say anything. Instead he chose to give it away. Bizzaramundo!
AJ
Instead he chose to give it away. Bizzaramundo!
As I said, Obama was the US President, and the US did not own Tibet. Since we did not own it, it is impossible for him to have Given It Away.
His decision was about not steppng into a matter that was between China and Tibet, and that matter was decided years ago when China invaded and conquered Tibet. You need to remember the current government in Tibet is not autonomous. Its actions are subject to the approval of China.
Since we did not own it, it is impossible for him to have Given It Away.
Why did Obama bother to tell the Chinese they could keep Tibet?
AJ
I really, really wish you'd put a smiley in there somewhere :(
I don't understand your problem.
I agreed with the statement made - that pretending Chinese imperialism is not a problem only encourages the bastards.
I thought my "accidentally say something truthful" could only be interpreted as referring to Trump.
My meaning was this looks like something Trump will get this one right - for the wrong reasons.
Why did Obama bother to tell the Chinese they could keep Tibet?
Simple! That was Obama's way of acknowledging that Tibet did not belong to the US, and it was not our fight to free Tibet from China's rule.
How would you go about saying something like that?
Or, are you saying that the US should have stepped into the situation? If not, what is your problem with Obama not involving the US in that matter? And in answering that question, remember - at the time, China "owned" Tibet, not the US. The US did not give Tibet to China. The US chose to not dispute its ownership.
Although that appears to be the widely accepted explanation - that the name came from Amerigo Vespucci - the logical flaw is that almost every other place named after an explorer is connected to the surname, not the first name. Vespucci's first name was apparently Alberigo or Amerigho and it is claimed he changed it after he visited America.
An alternative that has been floated and seems to have more logic behind it is that the name is derived from Richard Amerike (or ap Meric) who was trading with the northern continent 20 years before Vespucci set sail.
I have no idea which is correct, but there is sufficient doubt to query the Vespucci explanation.
Me : I don't understand your problem.
You: I inferred myself to be the broken clock. :(
Actually, I finally twigged what your problem was in the process of preparing my explanation.
You may safely assume, that with my style of humour, if you only suspect I am insulting you, then you have missed some clue about the inference I am trying to make.
If I am intending to insulting you, then you will not suspect it. You will know for certain I am doing so. There's an example of that not far back in this very thread.
I have no idea which is correct
My feeling also that is why I qualified my original statement.
When the experts in history can't agree on where America originated, what chance do we have of knowing its source.
Simple! That was Obama's way of acknowledging that Tibet did not belong to the US, and it was not our fight to free Tibet from China's rule.
But the US did dispute China's illegal occupation of Tibet - they voted for the UN resolution condemning it.
Why did Obama cravenly change the tune? Did he get trade concessions as a result?
AJ
AJ
How would you go about saying something like that?
Inviting the Dalai Lama to a state dinner would be "saying" that, but I doubt even the new resident will say it that clearly.
At least Hillary would not have treated the Australian PM the way Trump did.
Turnbull is a distant cousin of mine, and Trump treated him a lot better than i would have. Maybe Hillary would've treated him a lot better, but not as well as she would treat the head of ISIS.
dispute
Disputing something in the UN and voting for it, is one thing. Sending US troops into Tibet is a totally different level of response.
Yes, Obama raised the issue in the UN. If he did not want to "give Tibet away", as you repeatedly say he did, the next level of response would have been to send in the troops. Obama didn't do that, and to get back to my original point, I suspect Trump would do that.
Furthermore what I take issue with is your saying the US gave Tibet to China. China had conquered Tibet, so China owned and controlled Tibet. Since China owned it, the US did not GIVE it to China, it was already theirs.
Of course, if I continue hearing you say the US gave it to China, I will have to assume you are blaming the US for not forcing the US's disapproval of how China gained ownership of Tibet down China's throat; the only way for Obama to have done that would be to send US troop's into Tibet. Obama recognized that was not only the wrong thing to do, he recognized it would instigate a shooting war between the US and China. That is what many of us Americans fear about Trump. We doubt that he would hesitate to send in the troops.
but not as well as she would treat the head of ISIS.
Something we will never know since she wasn't elected to the position of President.
However, Trump has made many statements regarding his various positions and interests in the Middle East. If coming out against ISIS would hurt the Trump's business empire, I doubt that he will do so. In that event, he will probably invite the head of ISIS to a friendly, amiable dinner as his place in Mar-a-Lago.
If coming out against ISIS would hurt the Trump's business empire, I doubt that he will do so.
If coming put against ISIS would hurt Clinton's business empire she wouldn't do it either. However, she wouldn't care if doing something hurt the USA or other USA citizens as long as it made her look good or made her a dollar. But both statements apply to everyone in the current USA political structure.
But both statements apply to everyone in the current USA political structure.
While I agree with the potential for either Trump or Hilary to take that position, the fact remains that Trump is President and he appears to be allowing his business interests to overrule doing what would be best for the US and its citizens.
he appears to be allowing his business interests to overrule doing what would be best for the US and its citizens
He's also fulfilling his campaign promises. In his speech where he took the MSM to the woodshed yesterday (and they did NOT like that one bit), he said that apparently he's a politician now. And when was the last time you saw a politician actually keep any of his campaign promises?
The man is a successful businessman. He has done a LOT of stuff over the years. Sure, he's had a few failures - those of us who've started up a business on our own can understand that completely. If you're not willing to risk it, in the hope that you can improve your lot in life, then don't bother to play the game - and don't complain when someone who DOES play the game well comes along.
He proved that years ago when he refused to make an interest payment to the banks that, if he'd done it at the time, would have ruined him. But they had loaned him so much money that if he defaulted - which he said he would do - it would ruin the banks themselves. They were betting on him eventually being able to pay them off - and they were right.
And oh, yeah, one minor detail - the US citizenry should be deciding what's best for itself. We did that - we're a representative republic, that's why we elected him President. To paraphrase Star Trek, he's already rich beyond the dreams of avarice. He doesn't NEED more money. He already HAS lots of money, wealth, and power.
What we've seen in the last month is that he's hit the ground running, taking charge here like it was a business that was in trouble, firing people that should be fired, and promoting those people who believe in his vision, and letting them run with it. The minor detail that it's giving the liberals in this country complete fits and causing them to melt down is just gravy on the 'taters.
(Note - full disclosure - I didn't support him. I voted for Ted Cruz in our primary. But I sure voted for him in the general - my god, just the thought of Hillary as President and what would have happened then is enough to give this transplanted Hoosier to Okie land nightmares.)
the US citizenry should be deciding what's best for itself.
That's what the majority did - but those who wanted Clinton refuse to accept it - - which is an attitude they'd have shot others for having if Clinton had won.
I don't dispute what you have said, but you overlooked a few things:
1. Throughout the Primaries and General Election, Trump voiced his intent to change things and that is one of the main factors which led to him being elected President. However, the media and others attempted to pin him down on precisely what he thought should be changed and in what manner it should be changed. Trump refused to provide that information to the American public.
2. The Constitution delegates the right to make laws to Congress, not the Executive branch. Executive Orders were intended to address emergency situations that could not be postponed until Congress could address them. Yes, other Presidents have also misused Executive Orders.
What Trump is doing in fulfilling his campaign promises is to use Executive Orders to make the Government do what he wants them to do even though his orders circumvent or violate existing laws. The President is NOT above the law.
His Executive Order banning non-US citizens from entering the country is a perfect example. The poorly thought out, hastily conceived and implemented Executive Order he signed prohibited many existing US residents from re-entering the US. His actions caused immense grief and problems, both personal and financial, to the people who had a legal right to re-enter the country. It also caused problems for those who had to enforce his order without sufficient guidelines as to what they were supposed to do. He administration failed to consult the proper people in the Government departments that control and regulate immigration. They apparently did so because they refused to accept and trust what they were being told by members of those departments.
I might also point out two additional facts about that order. 1) Obama implemented a watch order on those 7 countries for what seem to be valid reasons. Trump uses that as an excuse for his order, which placed an immediate ban on immigrants from 7 predominantly Muslim countries. 2) All Muslim countries in the Middle East present us with the same threat of terrorists entering the US. Trump's business empire does not do business in those 7 countries, but his business does do a great deal of business in some of the other Muslim countries. It looks like he wants to play nice to the countries where he has business interests.
3. Trump ran a Hate campaign. He focused his supporters on the things they hated and encouraged their hatred. Now he is faced with a choice: Use his power as President to discriminate against American citizens on racial, sexual, religious, or other grounds, or tell his followers that he will not fulfill his campaign promises. I might restate 1 above by saying that Trump's campaign promises to the hate mongers were to changing things, but he never told them precisely how he would change things. Now he will have to take a position, and I don't think the hate mongers are going to like the position their candidate will take.
Obama stopped disputing that China has no legal right to Tibet.
It's a good thing nobody considered him the leader of the free world because what sort of message would that give? You can nick bits of the free world and keep them, that's fine with me!
The UK is no better. In our haste to do a post-Brexit trade deal with China, our negotiators are deliberately not raising the issue of human rights.
AJ
Throughout the Primaries and General Election, Trump voiced his intent to change things and that is one of the main factors which led to him being elected President. However, the media and others attempted to pin him down on precisely what he thought should be changed and in what manner it should be changed. Trump refused to provide that information to the American public.
Obama did exactly the same thing the first time around.
Obama did exactly the same thing
The classic position of most people who run for office DS. If memory serves me right, Trump did it to a far greater extent than Obama, and Obama gave the voters at least a general idea of what he intended to do. All Trump seemed to do was say - have faith in me, I'll do what I told you I would do. When you stop and think about it from that POV, he never made a campaign promise; the voters just think he did.
I've always looked at a campaign promise as the candidate telling the voter they will try to do whatever it is they promise.
There is no way that any candidate for the executive branch can guarantee to have a specific piece of legislation passed. Anyone who believes an executive branch candidate can keep their promise is kidding themself. The worst aspect of Trump is that during the election Trump was proved to be a liar on multiple occasions, and many of the people who voted for him said they didn't care - they trusted him to do what he promised them.
If memory serves me right, Trump did it to a far greater extent than Obama, and Obama gave the voters at least a general idea of what he intended to do.
Memory doesn't serve you right. He was a junior Senator with no record to speak of and his entire campaign was "Hope and Change".
Donald Trump just called the media the 'enemy of the American people'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-18/donald-trump-called-the-media-the-enemy-of-the-american-people/8282760
But this morning, the US President dramatically stepped up his attack on news outlets on his preferred medium Twitter:
The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!
Given that there were enough people to vote him in, there's a good chance it'll work for Trump as well.
Anyone that supports him are "the People- the working class, soldiers, farmers" Anyone that opposes him or disagrees is obviously an enemy of America.
There are already bills planned to wind up the EPA, and another being worked on to wind up the Department of Education.
https://qz.com/911647/the-text-of-a-new-republican-bill-has-just-one-line-to-terminate-the-u-s-environmental-protection-agency/
All those clean air & water laws are bad for business (doesn't matter that they're good for agriculture or for the population in general), and an educated population just leads to disquiet and unrest when people realise that they're being screwed over. Better to keep them ignorant.
It worked for Chairman Mao. It worked for Hitler. It is working for Putin. It could very well work for Trump.
Obama provided exactly zero detail in his first presidential campaign.
The following is a link to the speech Obama made when he announced his candidacy for President in 2007.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/10/barackobama
In that speech Obama laid out his vision for America. He told Americans what he wanted to do during his Presidency if he was elected. He set goals for his administration. The details for how to attain those goal were not provided.
Trump did not provide Americans with that level of detail during the Primaries. He kept saying he would improve things but improve them in what way. That he refused to divulge. It wasn't until the debates that we started to get the level of detail that Obama provided in his speech announcing his candidacy.
He told Americans what he wanted to do during his Presidency if he was elected. He set goals for his administration. The details for how to attain those goal were not provided.
The goals themselves were mush, devoid of meaning or detail.
The goals themselves were mush, devoid of meaning or detail.
But they were still far more than Trump gave the American people.
But they were still far more than Trump gave the American people.
More meaningless mush does not equal more detail, in fact it arguably equals less detail (because it amounts to negative quantities of detail).
What would Obama have given away next - all the islands in the South China Sea? Taiwan?
Only Obama? ISTR that the then President wanted to give away the Falkland Islands against the wishes of their inhabitants.
(That was the time when a US navy man stated for the record that no naval officer was allowed to have the family name of Major - offensive bugg*r)
They clearly think they live on another planet when they gives names such as World Series and Superbowl to contests in sports nobody else gives a damn about
It is my understanding that Baseball is a major sport in Japan( and perhaps elsewhere like the Philippines) but the USA forbids any team from a foreign nation to play in the so-called World series. And when can any UK based American Football team take part in any "world whatever" ?
It is my understanding that Baseball is a major sport in Japan
Yes. It is major sport in some large countries occupied by the USA in the past, and some smaller ones south of the mainland 48.
You don't expect me to spoil a good anti-American rant for the sake of accuracy, do you? ;)
I did mention that insulting Americans is the second most popular sport in the world; I happen to be pretty awful at playing football.
the time when a US navy man stated for the record that no naval officer was allowed to have the family name of Major
I could see why the Army and Marines may have such a rule - they learnt that lesson from Catch-22 - but why would the Navy be concerned?
It is extremely popular in the UK in primary schools as well, but is called by it's original name of Rounders - and has been around since the 18th century.
And when can any UK based American Football team take part in any "world whatever" ?
Soon? The old chestnut of basing a franchise in the UK seems to be back with renewed vigour. And as we Brits seem to have ready access to 'nutritional supplements' (Bradley Wiggins's words), there should be no problem about keeping the players bulked up.
AJ
Be realistic AJ. The UK hasn't perfected the lobotomy techniques required for the players or commentators.
sejintenej
the time when a US navy man stated for the record that no naval officer was allowed to have the family name of Major
I could see why the Army and Marines may have such a rule - they learnt that lesson from Catch-22 - but why would the Navy be concerned?
Because it was already well known that he supported keeping the Falkland Islands British!
(He was actually a British Naval Officer posted to work with the USA Navy in the USA during that war).
@Ross at PlayIt is extremely popular in the UK in primary schools as well, but is called by it's original name of Rounders - and has been around since the 18th century
I played it until I was banned for hurling the ball too fast (and accurately). They realised they could end up with a seriously injured batsman). They made me play cricket instead which was akin to torture
we Brits seem to have ready access to 'nutritional supplements' (Bradley Wiggins's words)
Tell me more!
I have long thought the recent period of dominance of professional cycling by the SkySports team as about as natural as Lance Armstrong's.
Then again, I wouldn't want anyone discussing the glorious history of Australian track cycling at the Olympics.
Ah, but it is youth experience like that which gives the English cricketers such an edge over the Aussies. ;)
Ah, but it is youth experience like that which gives the English cricketers such an edge over the Aussies. ;)
I no longer feed the forum troll.
Ah, but it is youth experience like that which gives the English cricketers such an edge over the Aussies. ;)
Until they changed the rules top ban bodyline bowling
Obama provided exactly zero detail in his first presidential campaign.
I'm not sure what alternate reality you're visiting from (alt-facts), but that's surely not the way I remember his election.
Trump has always been short on specifics, employs no one with any knowledge of implementation, and believes in the magic of bluster. While Hilary was hardly a strong candidate, you know what she'd do once elected (mostly NOT rock the boat), thus she'd be unlikely to disrupt the entire government.
By the way, everyone, I apologize for stirring up this can of worms. I naively hoped I could make a snide comment about the most recent election without invoking a flame war! :(
It worked for Chairman Mao. It worked for Hitler. It is working for Putin. It could very well work for Trump.
Check out the latest "Atlantic" magazine for an excellent article on "The Making of an Autocrat", written by a conservative who sees Trump following the lines taken by several newly elected leaders who managed to deconstuct their countries democratic institutions. His point is, don't keep making analogies to the 40s, as the world has changed since then. He doesn't need an army of brown shirt, government workers, instead he can intimidate with an unofficial army of 'supporters' who'll threaten the lives of reporters family with no fall-out on Trump.
Given these leaders successes in their own country, it's entirely possible we could be witnessing the final days of American democracy. If not, it's likely to take generations before we can restore the American image in the eyes of most of the world.
But they were still far more than Trump gave the American people.
Please, is this debate devolving into "he said"/"she said"? We're dealing with enough alt-news accusing the established news media for "fake news" for reporting demonstrable facts, we don't need that kind of crap here.
It is my understanding that Baseball is a major sport in Japan
Yes. It is major sport in some large countries occupied by the USA in the past, and some smaller ones south of the mainland 48.
Japan remains one of the premiere Little League Baseball champions (not so much for pro-baseball, though).
without invoking a flame war!
I never consider the exchange of honest opinions a flame war regardless of who is involved. I've sat out on a number of issues where I had strong opinions but felt my input was not necessary.
edited to delete unintended bold
I never consider the exchange of honest opinions a flame war regardless of who is involved. I've sat out on a number of issues where I had strong opinions but felt my input was not necessary.
Sorry, once again I've covered everyone with my blanket statements. I was referring to the "No they didn't"/"Yes they did" exchanges, which amount to little more than unsubstantiated claims of personal perceptions (akin to the claims of 'thousands of American Muslims celebrating in the streets after 9/11').
I doubt the whole truth will ever come out. IMO professional cycling is awash with drugs. How does a journeyman cyclist like Chris Froome suddenly become world class? It's always dodgy when a sportsperson, in the middle of their career and seemingly going nowhere, suddenly starts to leap tall buildings :(
AJ
I recall an interesting novel about performance enhancing drugs and profession athletes that I read several years ago; sorry but I don't recall the title.
The plot was based on professional athletes being allowed to use the drugs, but the drugs destroyed their health and usually killed them in their 30's or 40's. The MC didn't use the drugs and was able to perform at almost the same level as athletes who used the drugs. One aspect of the novel was whether she should use the drugs so attain the higher level of performance and gain the superstar status that would give her. Of course that would only last for 5-10 years, then her body would burnout.
Touche :)
Okay. I'll stop looking at:
* the results of England's latest tour of India
* the history of ICC Test Team Rankings
* when have teams held The Ashes for periods that include two or more away tours?
Answer:
- England: 1882-1890
- Australia: 1934-51, 1958-1968, and eight consecutive floggings from 1989 to 2003!
Did I mention you were better at resisting the temptation to feed the forum "trolls" that I was?
Ouch!
Though having to go back two centuries to find a winning streak...... I honestly thought England was better than that. I was surprised the Lillian Thompson years didn't produce that sort of winning streak as well. Maybe I should check the Aussie statistics of Rugby Union results against smaller islands?
The Aussies will need to be careful they don't suffer a loss of talent though. According to a (not known for it's accuracy) British daily paper, the High Commissioner from there wants open borders so homesick Aussies can return to God's country - though he didn't exactly phrase it that way. (there again, he also said there was a 'non-discriminatory' approach to immigration, and that is being somewhat economical with the truth).
Sorry!
No need for apology, you stated a (painful) fact.
....and anyway, I thought it was part of the joint culture to attack the sporting failures of the two countries ;) (Not that there are many English ones to attack of course)
Maybe I should check the Aussie statistics of Rugby Union results against smaller islands?
To be fair, you would need to include the sum of results for Rugby Union and Rugby League. (You may add in Australian Rules too, if you wish).
But I'm forgetting that round ball game. You are fairly good at that, but remind me ... what century was it the last time England won a trophy at football? ;)
I'm gonna cop heaps for that one if Australia doesn't flog England five-zip again in the next Ashes series, in Australia.
if Australia
The word you should have used is "when" Though sadly I don't see England producing the whitewash either....or even winning the series.
The Aussies will need to be careful they don't suffer a loss of talent though.
They can keep all our South Africans company.
AJ
A trivia question, as we're discussing something important, cricket, instead of boring old American politics ...
Which two countries played in the first international cricket match?
Which two countries played in the first international cricket match?
USA vs Canada in 1844 - don't know why they didn't keep it up.
I knew this one, but I had to check some of the details.
It was Scotland v England, 22-a-side.
AJ
I suspect you'll find that was at a time when Scotland wasn't regarded as another country, but a territory of England.
I knew this one, but I had to check some of the details.
It was Scotland v England, 22-a-side.
An opportunity to spit on the reference EB & I had relied upon ...
Tell me more!
Scotland wasn't regarded as another country, but a territory of England.
In 1844, Canada wasn't regarded as another country either, but a territory of England.
In 1844, Canada wasn't regarded as another country either, but a territory of England.
Canada was a colony with a colonial government while the counties of Scotland were seen as English counties and not separate colonies . Minor legal difference since both were under the control of the English Parliament but Scotland was under the same parliamentary department as the rest of England while Canada, Australia, and the other colonies were under a different department, and thus seen as foreign lands under British control.
typo fix edit
while the counties of Scotland were seen as English counties
Seen by some damned English oppressors as a part of England, perhaps, but you are never going to get someone whose name consists entirely of Scottish clan names to agree that Scotland, the birthplace of all my alcoholic ancestors, has not always been a different country.
Be careful how you answer this one, or I'll ask my mate, Mel, to come around and bore you to death with bad acting.
you are never going to get someone whose name consists entirely of Scottish clan names to agree that Scotland,
I've got so many ancestors who were Scottish it isn't funny, however the Scottish Reform Act 1832 was passed by the English parliament as an internal management law not one to manage a colony.
I'm a real bitser with ancestors from Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England with most from Scotland and the English ones were from northern England where they were often more Scots than English.
typical ;)
yeah the new keyboard isn't as sensitive as the old one, so sometimes the keystrokes aren't heavy enough to register. Downside is I sometimes have a letter not register, upside is I don't get three or four of the same letter show for one hit of the key.
And the answer is ...
Canada and USA played the first international cricket match, in New York, in 1844.
Canada (82 and 63) defeated USA (64 and 58) by 23 runs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_cricket_team_in_the_United_States_in_1844
Be careful how you answer this one, or I'll ask my mate, Mel, to come around and bore you to death with bad acting.
Mel who? Is there another bad actor apart from Mel Gibson (who was born in NY, so you don't have to acknowledge his existence). IIRC, his family only moved to Australia to avoid the draft for an older brother, even though the grandfather was an American millionaire. Very patriotic family!
his family only moved to Australia to avoid the draft for an older brother, even though the grandfather was an American millionaire. Very patriotic family!
explains why he's as mad as a cut snake
I suspect you'll find that was at a time when Scotland wasn't regarded as another country, but a territory of England.
In a way it still is. England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland compete in the World Cup as individual countries yet England seem to be able to pick the best players from Scotland, Wales and Ireland. 'England' seems to be a misnomer, it should be 'British Isles', but I can imagine how well that would go down with the Irish Republic.
AJ
It wasn't the first official international, but the first de facto international. It's a common gotcha for quizsters.
AJ
Mel who? Is there another bad actor
No!
I'm a stickler for avoiding redundancies.
Using 'Mel' and 'bad acting' in the same sentence was sufficient to identify who I meant.
Interesting. That's the year before Scotland v England. That's one in the eye for both myself and my source.
I dispute wikipedia's (spit!) claim that it was the first official international - that was three decades later by my reckoning and involved Australia.
AJ
'England' seems to be a misnomer, it should be 'British Isles'
Don't you mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Southern Africa?
Remind me....which part of Victoria state was Fawad Ahmed born in?
You missed the first part of the exchange.
AJ was the first to suggest the English team was full of South Africans. ;)
the biggest issue with cricket is the noise they make at dusk with all that chirpping away
Remind me....which part of Victoria state was Fawad Ahmed born in?
Can you spot the odd man out in his list?
Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Strauss, Nasser Hussain, Allan Lamb, Graeme Hick, Tony Greig, Mike Denness, Tony Lewis, Ted Dexter, Colin Cowdrey (Snr)
Yet for some reason American use the term 'crickets' as meaning silence. I am not sure if it is based on being able to hear them, or not being able to hear anything else - or some other reason, but it seems counter intuitive to then call a phone company by the same name.
Yes, I think only one of them played for two different national teams (and I don't know how accurate, but at one point it was reported he may apply for Australian citizenship).
(and wasn't Hick born in Rhodesia - though that is being pedantic!)
and wasn't Hick born in Rhodesia - though that is being pedantic!
Hick IS MY odd man out (but I don't know about the playing for two different national teams thing).
Hick never captained England, all the others did.
They WERE ALL born outside of England!
I will admit to being pedantic and cheating a bit by including Denness (born in Scotland), and Lewis (born in Wales).
I think I win today's prize for being a complete arsehole hands down with that one! ;)
the biggest issue with cricket
If you get a crick in your neck
"crick is often a muscle spasm caused by holding your neck in an awkward way for an extended period of time. This often happens when you sleep on a pillow that puts your neck in an awkward position. It can also happen from sitting at a computer too long and holding your head too far forward or back."
Who knew they would name a sport after a pain in the neck? Or that it could result from spending too much time at a computer?
I think I win today's prize for being a complete arsehole hands down with that one!
Being a gentleman I am unable to disagree with that assessment ;)
But I would also thank you for an enjoyable discussion that somehow - despite your being a whingeing Aussie and my being an educated Pom - remained friendly.
PS: I am not 100% certain about the two different national teams either, but it is stuck in my mind somewhere that it applied to Pietersen at junior level. You shouldn't really have included Denness though. Poor Scotland have enough to live down after being beaten by Afghanistan, without their having a Scotsman play for the auld enemy.
Poor Scotland have enough to live down after being beaten by Afghanistan
There's no shame in losing to Afghanistan. They are developing quickly, and there's no doubt they'll be the next country admitted to test status ranks.
But I'm forgetting that round ball game. You are fairly good at that, but remind me ... what century was it the last time England won a trophy at football? ;)
the 21st!
about six years ago when England beat France. The aunt of my honorary niece captained the French under 21 (?) team.
Nah! Youth tournaments don't count!
EDITED POST
FIFA has changed the age limits of youth World Cup type of tournaments too often to find a killing statistic to quote.
Both Australia and USA have made the quarter-finals several times more often than England at Under-17 or Under-21 levels (or their equivalents), and Australia is the only one of the three to ever make a final!
What about Eoin Morgan? He played for Ireland at international level before becoming captain of England's hit and giggle teams.
AJ
No, that omits Ireland
BITE ME!
I was using poetic license to create a joke.
In my poetry, I took two words ('Northern Ireland') from the formal title for the UK and replaced them with something that has some similarity in the sound ('Southern Africa').
Can you notice a kind of Whooshing sound just now?
Seriously, there are effective ways to write humour, and things that do not work.
The idea in my joke was not mind-blowing, but I got the wording just right.
I used the words, "United Kingdom of Great Britain and ..." When you reading at that point your brain would already have figured out I was using the exact wording of an expression you are familiar with. You would not have noticed it, but your brain would already have been anticipating the next words to be "Northern Ireland". I gave it "Southern Africa" instead.
There are some basic principles for writing humour. I see many writers on the site with great ideas for a funny line, but they fall flat because the wording is not right. Among the most important principles are:
* Create an expectation by readers, and then crap all over it
* The surprise words must come at the very end
* Choose the shortest wording possible, or even shorter
* Use identical constructs whenever you repeat phrases, or mimic others' words
* Never explain your jokes
EDIT TO ADD
This is a fine example of getting the wording perfect: No, I'm carnivorous. I don't bite vegetables
* Create an expectation by readers, and then crap all over it
* The surprise words must come at the very end
There is a cheer:
RAH, RAH, REE. Kick'em in the knee.
RAH, RAH, RAS. Kick'em in the other knee.
Even though RAS rhymes with ass. In theory what they expected. * Never explain your jokes.
entirely off subject, RAH is the initials of Robert Anson Heinlein. I don't know how he got in the cheer. My initials are RAS. I don't know why mine are their either. I suspect REE isn't anyone's initials, likely it was picked to rhyme with knee.
There is a cheer:
RAH, RAH, REE. Kick'em in the knee.
RAH, RAH, RAS. Kick'em in the other knee.
I love it.
The surprise crapping all over the other knee comes at the very end.
RAH, RAH, RAS. Kick'em in the other knee.
Even though RAS rhymes with ass. In theory what they expected.
For maximum impact, you need a dramatic pause.
RAH, RAH, RAS. Kick'em in the ... other knee.
RAH, RAH, RAS. Kick'em in the ... other knee.
Or
RAH, RAH, RAS. Kick'em in the ... kid knee.
AJ
