Forum: Author Hangout

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.'

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?).

'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.

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!!

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

AZERTYUIOP[]

Minor nit, but it is QZERTYUIOP[]

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!

Is that anything like the stuttering finger that turns lose into loose?

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.

How do Americans pronounce that teenage cry of disgust, "Ewwwwww!". If it's pronounced "Ooooooo", it rather loses its impact :(

AJ

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.

How do Americans pronounce that teenage cry of disgust, "Ewwwwww!"

e-you

@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."

a conglomeration of smaller entities rather than one area

That's not the case with the Bronx

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

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.

Is that what they mean by 'the pencil test'? ;)

AJ

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.

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.

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

correct. I was thinking of upper row of the 3 alpha character rows relative to the home row (third row down).

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.

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.

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. :(

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. :)

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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

but did they have to elect an alien as there president to prove it?

They survived that and he's now been replaced.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I really, really wish you'd put a smiley in there somewhere :(

AJ

I inferred myself to be the broken clock. :(

AJ

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 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.

but during that campaign, he provided far more detail than Trump did in his.

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.

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.

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.

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! :(

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').

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IAa0bsjGZI

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

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

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).

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

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.

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

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. :)

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

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.

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.

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? ;)

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".

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

It wasn't the first official international, but the first de facto international. It's a common gotcha for quizsters.

AJ

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

Careful. Lazeez may be reading this.

typo, can't yet drive my new keyboard properly.

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.

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.

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

the biggest issue with cricket is the noise they make at dusk with all that chirpping away

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 - see subsequent observation about Eoin Morgan.

AJ

BITE ME!

No, I'm carnivorous. I don't bite vegetables ;)

AJ

RAH, RAH, RAS. Kick'em in the ... other knee.

Or

RAH, RAH, RAS. Kick'em in the ... kid knee.

AJ

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