Jamie123
-
Posts
2977 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Posts posted by Jamie123
-
-
16 minutes ago, Vort said:
There are some very deep differences between Americans and the English in matters of temperament, manners, mannerisms, expectations, and social grace.
I notice in America it's the norm to address people you don't know as "sir" or "madam". I think that was common here once but its gone out of fashion. Instead of "Excuse me, sir," we would just say "Excuse me".
-
Reminds me of something else too. When I was about seven, a little girl was abducted and murdered near our school. The investigation went on for weeks, during which all children had it drilled into their heads that they must NEVER talk to strangers and should CERTAINLY never get into a car with a stranger.
Well at the height of all this, I was just leaving school when a bearded man I didn't recognize stepped in front of me and asked me if I wanted a lift.
I said "No".
He said "Why not?"
Had I been a little older I would have invented a little white lie. However, I was only seven. My 100% truthful reply was: "Because you might be the man who murdered the girl."
By the time I got home it was all over the neighbourhood that I'd been "Calling Mr. Williams a murderer". My parents were dying with embarrassment, and it was all anyone wanted to talk about for ages.
Well what the Dickens did they expect?
1. I'd only met the guy once or twice before in my life and in a totally different setting.
2. He had grown a beard since then.
3. We had had it drummed into us for weeks about not getting into cars with strangers, so how the heck was I going to react?
4. Who was to say he wasn't the murderer?
For all I know he still might have been. The police did "get" somebody for the crime, but his conviction was later overturned on appeal. A few years back someone wrote a book about the case claiming it was the Yorkshire Ripper. But after all this time I doubt we'll ever know.
- Vort and Carborendum
-
2
-
It reminds me of "William's Truthful Christmas" by Richmal Crompton. Eleven year old William Brown is spending Christmas with his aunt and uncle. He has taken a little too literally the vicar's Christmas sermon on "casting aside deceit and hypocrisy and speaking the truth".
QuoteUncle Frederick looked out of the window and groaned aloud.
“It’s Lady Atkinson,” he said, “Help! Help!”
“Now, Frederick dear,” said Aunt Emma hastily, “Don’t talk like that and do try to be nice to her. She’s one of the Atkinsons, you know,” she explained with empressement to Mrs. Brown in a whisper as the lady was shown in.
Lady Atkinson was stout and elderly and wore a very youthful hat and coat.
“A happy Christmas to you all!” she said graciously. “The boy? Your nephew? William? How do you do, William? He—stares rather, doesn’t he? Ah, yes,” she greeted every one separately with infinite condescension.
“I’ve brought you my Christmas present in person,” she went on in the tone of voice of one giving an unheard-of treat. “Look!”
She took out of an envelope a large signed photograph of herself. “There now ... what do you think of that?”
Murmurs of surprise and admiration and gratitude.
Lady Atkinson drank them in complacently.
“It’s very good isn’t it? You ... little boy ... don’t you think it’s very like me?”
William gazed at it critically.
“It’s not as fat as you are,” was his final offering at the altar of truth.
“William!” screamed Mrs. Brown, “how can you be so impolite!”
“Impolite?” said William with some indignation. “I’m not tryin’ to be polite! I’m bein’ truthful. I can’t be everything. Seems to me I’m the only person in the world what is truthful an’ no one seems to be grateful to me. It isn’t ’s fat as what she is,” he went on doggedly, “an’ it’s not got as many little lines on its face as what she has an’ it’s different lookin’ altogether. It looks pretty an’ she doesn’t——”
Lady Atkinson towered over him, quivering with rage.
“You nasty little boy!” she said thrusting her face close to his. “You NASTY—little—boy!”
Then she swept out of the room without another word.
The front door slammed.
She was gone.
Aunt Emma sat down and began to weep.
“She’ll never come to the house again,” she said.
“I always said he ought to be hung,” said Robert gloomily. “Every day we let him live he complicates our lives still worse.”
“I shall tell your father, William,” said Mrs. Brown, “directly we get home.”
“The kindest thing to think,” said Ethel, “is that he’s mad.”
“Well,” said William, “I don’ know what I’ve done ’cept cast aside deceit an’—an’ the other thing what he said in church an’ speak the truth an’ that. I don’ know why every one’s so mad at me jus’ ’cause of that. You’d think they’d be glad!”
“She’ll never set foot in the house again,” sobbed Aunt Emma.
Uncle Frederick, who had been vainly trying to hide his glee, rose.
“I don’t think she will, my dear,” he said cheerfully. “Nothing like the truth, William ... absolutely nothing.”
He pressed a half-crown into William’s hand surreptitiously as he went to the door....
SPOILER: Uncle Frederick was being overoptimistic. Lady Atkinson returns later in a mercilessly forgiving mood.
- Vort, Carborendum and zil2
-
3
-
5 hours ago, Carborendum said:
Then, more importantly, "What claim does she have on your assets because she is still married to you?"
You're right - I do need to research exactly where I stand. If we're set for long-term separation there likely need to be some safeguards. Deep down I still love her and I like to think this separation is only a temporary thing. Right now I couldn't handle having her back in the house. (I have uneasy dreams about it.) But maybe one day...
-
I've told my wife that the only reason I would ever divorce her would be to get remarried, and since that's not on the cards I see no reason to give free money to lawyers. If she wants a divorce then that's up to her, but it'll be her project not mine. Maybe one day I'll reconcile with her, but until then I'll be a MGTOW
-
I'm happy that my wife and daughter have started being nice to me again, but I can't help thinking I'm being taken for a ride. My wife has now rented a nice apartment, and my daughter ("child") is staying with her over the summer vacation. My wife said to me the other day that she has counted all the money she has coming in and it's not enough to cover her rent. I asked her if that included the allowance I'm still paying her. She said no, and including that she might just have enough. Then she said that our daughter needs £550 to pay the deposit on the apartment she is renting for college next year. I told her I didn't have enough to pay it, so she said could I pay part of it and she would pay the rest? I asked her how she would get the money and she said she didn't know.
Well you can guess what I was thinking, can't you? Do you use the term "loan shark" over there? If she gets herself in trouble with one of those, which muggins do you think will be getting her out again? So I gave her the £550 (despite putting my account into the red) - after all it is for my daughter's education, fair enough.
But last Saturday I took them both over to Ikea at Reading to buy some furniture for the apartment. Fine, no problem. Everyone needs furniture. But while we were there (and this is what my "moan" is really about) they spent about £70 on stuffed animals. I asked them if this was really needed, but mostly kept my gob closed for fear of being put back into the dog house. It may be my wife's money, but whose going to be supporting her when her account is empty again?
While we were in the waiting room waiting for the furniture, I tried relieving the pressure by performing the "Octopus and Cat Show" with two of the stuffed toys, but was promptly told to shut up. *Sigh*
I wrote a resume for my wife so hopefully she can get a job, and I thought it would be a good idea to ask our curate to be a reference. Our curate is actually a canon at Guildford cathedral (maybe similar to a stake president's counsellor for you?) and thought that might add a bit of gravitas. However, when I approached the curate she told me she wasn't happy with the way my wife had been "giving everyone the run-around" and she might not write nice things about her if asked. I didn't ask for details, but I can infer that there have been shenanigans that I don't know about.
Anyway if you read this far, thanks for listening. Moan over.
-
2 minutes ago, mikbone said:
I thought Charles was a figurehead? He making life or death decisions for your country?
Like our dear dementia leader?
That's a scary thought!
-
15 minutes ago, zil2 said:
@Jamie123, many Americans may not be aware that a country can have different people as "head of government" (e.g. your Prime Minister) vs "head of state" (e.g. your monarch). In the US, they're the same person: the President. (At least, that's how I understand it.)
That's how I understand it too. Some countries (France or Ireland for example) have a nonexecutive president, who is kind of like an elected monarch, and a Prime Minister who is head of government.
This is probably the least-fuss route we would take if we ever abolished the monarchy. Some great wise fatherly (or motherly) scholar or writer or musician - someone who could inspire everyone - would be perfect. But think who we could get!
- NeuroTypical and zil2
-
2
-
1 minute ago, mikbone said:
Well then, who is this wan<€r, dude?
Ummm...the Prime Minister of Canada?
We have one too...
-
2 minutes ago, mikbone said:
I hear the term ‘wanker’ associated with this Royal.
Ooooooo Mikbone said a naughty word!
I'm not a Cockney but I prefer "merchant banker" 😉
-
1 hour ago, mikbone said:
On average, a country celebrates independence from Britain roughly every six days. 65 countries have gained independence from the United Kingdom or British military occupation, and 48 of them celebrate a national day for it. This means that around 1.6 billion people can celebrate independence from Britain.
Hence - Not my King.
Fourteen of the countries you're referring to still have the British monarch as their head of state. Don't ask me to name them all, but there's Canada, Australia and New Zealand to start with
-
25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
This quote is accurate. But your verbiage in the previous post is something quite different. You may profit from learning a bit more about our judicial system and the precedents for qualified immunity.
Perhaps mine was an exaggeration. But I've seen the same (or similar) in enough places to think it must have some element of truth. I've even seen it on Lehto's Law.
25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:What I'd really like to see is an end to "absolute immunity" which certain government attorneys enjoy.
Very senior judges have something similar over here. In extreme circumstances they can be impeached, but they cannot be prosecuted the same way you or I could.
Absolute immunity does apply to the monarch, but I'm pretty sure a misbehaving monarch would be forced out one way or another.
-
18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
That doesn't even come close to reality. Where did you get this information?
QuoteIn recent years, judges have often ignored altogether the question of whether an officer acted unlawfully. That way, courts avoid setting a precedent for future cases, which allows the same conduct to repeatedly go unpunished. As one federal judge summarized, this is a “Catch-22”
-
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:
Subjects and citizens are both beholden to their rulers.
You can give up your US citizenship by leaving, and maybe filling out some forms. I assume a similar process is available for subjects?
I just realised I didn't answer your question. Yes you can make a "declaration of renunciation".
-
21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
There are many things that police do that is in violation of the law, but because they not-necessarily "should have known" they are given a pass.
The way I understand it is that no ruling can be made that a government action was unconstitutional unless a clear precedent exists that that action was unconstitutional. And since no ruling can ever be made, no precedent can ever be set. It might have come straight out of Catch 22.
-
-
36 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
Subjects and citizens are both beholden to their rulers.
You can give up your US citizenship by leaving, and maybe filling out some forms. I assume a similar process is available for subjects?
Nobody talks about "subjects" these days. (Except notionally, and in relation to the monarch.) We are British Citizens.
Maybe I am (like Terry Jones) "fooling myself", but king or no king, I can't believe we live in more of a dictatorship than a country where the police can beat you up and steal all your money, and then hide behind "qualified immunity" and "civil asset forfeiture".
I'll get flamed for saying that I know, but I'll bet every counter argument will boil down to one thing: "Don't spank my child".
(I wish Anatess was still here. She'd give me a run for my money for saying that!)
-
https://youtube.com/shorts/-kMhnf0o9OM?si=c_eScjwJyj2hCk5L
Oh yes he is your king. It doesn't matter two hoots if you're anti-monarchy, if you're British then he is your king. Or do you think you're special and different from the rest of us, and get to choose your own personal head of state?
It's no different from silly Democrats saying that Trump was not their president. Maybe Trump is an idiot and maybe he's not, but either way, during his term of office he was president.
- NeuroTypical and Vort
-
2
-
Quote
Ye Pow’rs wha mak mankind your care,
And dish them out their bill o’ fare,
Auld Scotland wants nae skinking ware
That jaups in luggies;
But, if ye wish her gratefu’ prayer,
Gie her a Haggis!
Everyone should try haggis. If you don't know what goes into haggis, don't look it up until you have eaten some. If you knew you wouldn't ever taste it, and once you have tasted it you won't care.
-
20 hours ago, LDSGator said:
The increasing Jewish hate in our world is chilling.
They're always banging on about antisemitists here. I don't understand who these antisemitism are. I don't hate Jews. Do you hate Jews? I don't believe I know anyone who hates Jews. (I know people who get cross about Israel, but not liking Israel is not the same as "Jew hating". Israel is a country. It is not a religion or a race.)
One of my best friends at school was a Jew. Admittedly he was a bit of an idiot (and a lot of people told him so) but his being an idiot had nothing to do with his being Jewish. On one occasion half the school got so tired of his shenanigans that they carried him to a notoriously muddy patch on the edge of the soccer pitch and threw him in.
By the way, when I say he was "an idiot" I don't mean he was unintelligent. He was one of the cleverest people I've ever known. He was just a bit on the loopy side. But again, that was nothing to do with his race or religion*.
*Not that he was in the slightest bit religious. Neither were any of his family. They even had a Christmas tree every year.
-
On 5/29/2024 at 6:15 PM, Carborendum said:
My German cousin said that the Dutch can understand German. But the Germans can't understand Dutch. Then I heard that the Dutch are also taught German in Schools. But the converse is not true.
I don't know, but I suspect that a German trying to read Dutch is rather like an Englishman (or an American) trying to understand Robbie Burns.
QuoteUpon that night, when fairies light
On Cassilis Downans dance,
Or owre the lays, in splendid blaze,
On sprightly coursers prance;
Or for Colean the rout is ta’en,
Beneath the moon’s pale beams;
There, up the Cove, to stray an’ rove,
Amang the rocks and streams
To sport that night … -
Thanks very much, and thanks to your nephew too. I really appreciate this.
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:But to add nuances, they make up a compound word, very much like they do in German.
They call this "agglutination" (a word I learned only recently). From what I've read, Finnish is famous for its levels of agglutination. The individual word elements they call "lemmas".
I recently found an interesting paper (A. Corral, G. Boleda, R. Ferrer-i-Cancho, Zipf’s Law for Word Frequencies: Word Forms versus Lemmas in Long Texts | PLOS ONE) where they have compared the Zipf laws for several languages including English and Finnish. My own code only looks at complete wordforms - theirs automatically splits words into their individual elements to study the frequencies of those elements, and does this for multiple languages! (I fear that may be beyond my abilities - though maybe I could persuade them to share their code!)
To give you an idea of the sort of thing I'm looking at, here is one of my graphs:
What I call the "beta index" is the log-log slope of the numbers of unique words exhibiting a particular frequency plotted against that frequency (e.g. 10,000 words appear once, 5,000 appear twice, 1000 appear 3 times etc.). The "alpha index" is the log-log slope of the frequency of a word plotted against its "rank" (rank 1 being the most frequent word, 2 being the second, 3 the third etc.) The Finnish cluster is more compact than the English (even accounting for the fact that far fewer Finnish items appear) suggesting there is less diversity in the alpha index, and also the beta indices are significantly higher.
Corral et al. found similar results for their wordforms, and to some extent their lemmas too (though oddly their beta indices for English are significantly higher than mine - though their study is based on only 3 English and 3 Finnish texts).
Plenty of room for investigation here - just so little time to spare though 😒
-
Don't you think Ken Page is unbelievably brilliant as Old Deuteronomy? He makes me weep and shiver all over!
I never saw this on the stage - only on the movie with Elaine Page as Grizabella and Sir John Mills as Gus. The night we had booked to see it was the night my daughter was unexpectedly born early. Still, I'm not complaining! 😀
-
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:
I'll forward the question to him. But I can tell you right now that the answer is yes.
I speak three languages and I am familiar with four others. And they all have such characteristics. I don't see how you can have a well-developed language that doesn't do that. And since Finnish is so grammatically complex, I doubt it would be absent such characteristics.
I'll get back to you when my nephew does.
Another thought: we often use the same word to mean different things - for example "head" could mean what's on top of your shoulder, or it could mean the person in charge of some group or organization, or it could mean the top of a sheet of paper, or it could mean a toilet on board a ship. In the latter three, the word is used by analogy. Another example, "tolerance" could mean the act of putting up with things that irritate you, or it could mean a range of values of some quantity which are acceptable for a particular purpose (like the tolerance of a resistor).
It is regularity of the language that interests me most. Particularly the Finnish documents are much truer to Zipf's law than the English ones. I have done some statistical tests that prove this is true, but I am interested in what causes it. There must be something about the language that makes it so.
By the way, I got the email today to say the paper has been accepted. I won't present it myself. I have a colleague who would get much more out of a trip to Cambridge than I would.
P.S. what I've read of Kullervo so far is very strange. It starts with a family of swans. (In the original they were apparently swans and chickens, but Tolkien's version only mentions swans.) A hawk and an eagle carry off two of the cygnets to different countries, where they appear to grow up as humans. No explanation for what's going on. The remaining cygnet stays with his mother and grows up evil - again somehow becoming human along the way. I've not had much time for reading, but I gather so far the Finns have some very strange ideas!
I need a good moan...
in General Discussion
Posted
I'm afraid I haven't taken anyone's advice and it's got worse. This afternoon my wife texted me again to say would I give her a "one off" payment of £900. I was shocked, and told her I would need to think about it. Then I remembered the car insurance is coming up and that will be £700, and I am already in big debt. She said not to worry and she would get the money "somehow" and I asked her "how, by going to a loan shark?" She said she would " never sink that low" and if I couldn't do it then don't worry, and I said I always could, just at the expense of going deeper into debt and more stress. She said not to worry and it was her responsibility and she would get the money "somehow" and I said "what are you planning to do, sell your body on the street?" That went down like a lead balloon. She kept saying then that she didn't want anything from me ever again and she would never ask for another penny, and (well you know what guilty conscience is like) I got straight online and transferred her £900. I'm getting dangerously close to my overdraft limit now. But I haven't a lot of faith in my wife's ability get money "somehow", and if she suffers so does my daughter (or "child" I should say).
The good news is i get my salary Wednesday, but I think I'm going to have to bite the bullet and get professional help. I can't go on like this.