| Author |
Message |
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 3:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Ross Howard wrote:
| Quote: | I am a United fan, but I haven't been to Old Trafford for 35 years.
Yes, it is in your blood in a way. I've never liked the club or any of
its players much since the '68 European Cup -- I'm sorry but Keane is
*not* Crerand, Giggs can't dribble dog drool next to Best (or even
Willie Morgan), and don't even get me started on that posing French
poet -- but I still follow the results of important matches and even
got moist-eyed when they beat Bayern to win the European Cup.
|
I can see the point of supporting a football club when its players
come from the areas it is named after, or even if they hadn't but the
club had burtured their talents from the start. But why would anyone support
a football club when its players could come from anywhere, and are
hired men who next season could be playing for any of the other
leading football clubs?
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Barnes
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 3:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
In alt.usage.english, Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 19 May 2005 02:00:31 +0100, Don Aitken wrote:
But there was a period, just before the ECB took over, when the
relevant body was the "Test and County Cricket Board", [...]
Ah, wasn't sure about that.
[...] which adhered to the old English tradition that it is unnecessary
to include the name of the country, all such things being English unless
otherwise specified. Cf Football Association, Rugby Union, etc.
Not to mention that the UK must be about the only country in the world not
to put its name on its coins.
[...]
No country name on its stamps, either. Maybe we're being minimalist, and
thus modern.
|
I'm told it's always been so. The UK is by tradition allowed stamps
without the country name, as a mark of respect/gratitude/whatever for
allegedly having come up with the idea of stamps in the first place.
There's a profile of the monarch instead.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 5:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:22:01 +0100, Matthew Huntbach
<mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrought:
| Quote: | On Wed, 18 May 2005, Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 13:48:42 GMT, the Omrud wrote:
It is, but I doubt they know he's Jewish. I didn't. It's not
something which would normally be mentioned here. I sometimes
discover that well-know people are Jewish, decades after I first
encountered them in the media. There are undoubtedly many more that
I haven't discovered. It's not normally a subject of discussion, any
more than being a Catholic would be.
I'm reminded about the fuss over the Labour poster showing Michael Howard
and Oliver Letwin as pigs.
It hadn't occurred to me that both were Jewish until the fuss was made.
If I had actually been asked "What is the religion of Michael Howard
and Oliver Letwin?", had I thought about it I would have ended up saying
"Oh, yes, they're both Jewish". But it's not something I was consciously
aware of before the fuss, I very much doubt most British people were
consciously aware of it, and I guess that includes those responsible for
the poster. The claim that the poster was deliberately intended as
a piece of anti-semitism was ridiculous, and the main effect of the fuss
was to remind anyone who might have vestigial anti-semitism of a fact
they probably hadn't thought of before. Of course, once it had been
pointed out, the posters took on a more sinister aspect and had to be
withdrawn.
Or, perhaps, the brouhaha over a remark by Ken "I'm an iconoclast so I'm
allowed to be offensive" Livingston to a journalist who happened to be
Jewish.
Slightly different circumstances - Livingstone made a remark to the
journalist likening him to a concentration camp guard, the journalist
pointed out that he was Jewish, but Livingstone carried on with the
insult and refused to apologise. Livingstone ought to have backed down
immediately, recognising that likening a Jew to a concentration camp
guard is a much nastier insult than likening anyone else, and what
was excusable before he knew his victim was Jewish was inexcusable
afterwards.
|
There was things about both sides of that story that I was uneasy
about.
Yes, Livingstone was stupidly insensitive (to the sensitivities a
fairly significant part of the London electorate, if nothing more
heartfelt). Yet the essential point is one that arises often, and I
don't think society has yet come to terms with. Before making the
remark, Livingstone was unaware that the person he was talking to was
Jewish. Does this mean that we should never say anything at all that
could possibly be interpreted more sensitively if addressed to a
member of certain ethnic or religious group, even if the person's
ethnic group or religion are both irrelevant and unknown? Should we
never call an abusive employer a "slave driver" until we've made sure
that he's not black? Should food never be described as "to die for"
until we've confirmed that the other person isn't recently bereaved?
Or is it something special about "concentration-camp guard"? That the
Holocaust should be off-limits for humour goes without saying; but is
it now a no-no even for insults? Or does it depend on the insultee?
Can Jean-Marie le Pen be likened to a Nazi with impunity, but not a
radical Israeli right-winger? And what if the offended reporter,
instead of "I'm Jewish", had said "I'm of Romany origin", "I'm a
German gay" or "I'm descended from Polish communists" or associated
with any other groups who were victims of the brutality of the
concentration camp guards -- would that have made Livingstone's
remarks less or more offensive?
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 5:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:57:45 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Areff wrote:
Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
I would've said that "Malcolm" was Scottish. But is it of Gaelic origin,
or is it another foreign import to go with David, Alexander, and so on[1]?
It appears to be native Gaelic, meaning "follower of the Dove [St.
Columba]".
Well, except that it contains an imported name inside it (Columba).
Columba is the Latin form of the Gaelic Colm. |
He was born in Ireland (County Donegal) where he is known as Colm.
He is also known as Colm-cille [1], the suffix cille meaning "of the
Churches".
He should not be confused with St. Columbanus or any of the St. Colmans.
[1] Also Colmcille and Colm Cille
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 5:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:05:15 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Andrew Gwilliam spake thusly:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:18:25 +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:47:47 +0100, Andrew Gwilliam
bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks it economic stupidity to use a business's
assets to fund massive loans to purchase said business, or is my naivety
preventing my becoming a successful multi-millionaire? It certainly seems
like madness in the case of a football club, it's not like they can open
more branches (unless I'm being woefully unimaginative).
Opening more branches is an interesting idea. They could start a "Manchester
United" in each soccer-playing country in the world. This could develop into
the Manchester United International Championship in which only MU teams
play. The Glazers are probably not ready for that sort of investment - they
need income.
Normally I would trot out the platitude that you have to spend money to
make money; but Mr Glazer appears to have a rather different approach (you
have to borrow on the basis of assets you don't possess in order to be able
to buy those assets). The banks are either very smart, or very dumb
(probably both, TBH).
But since he is a billionaire in his own right, he presumably has
enough money to pay off the debt. No doubt the banks have factored
this in.
|
He is only a 1.1 dollar billionaire (600m UKP). The MU takeover has cost
790m UKP. Only 260m was Glazer's own money, the rest was borrowed.
In terms that most of us can understand: he has effectively mortgaged Man U.
Roman Abramovich, who bought Chelsea FC, is way ahead of Glazer with an
estimated fortune of 7,500m UKP. It has only just crossed my mind, but he is
also Jewish.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CDB
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 6:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
"Matthew Huntbach" <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0505190944280.2545@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk...
| Quote: | On Thu, 19 May 2005, CDB wrote:
"Andrew Gwilliam" <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote in
Not to mention that the UK must be about the only country in the
world not
to put its name on its coins. I wonder why they stopped, I'm sure
it used
to be on there ("Rex. Brit.", or suchlike).
No country name on its stamps, either. Maybe we're being
minimalist, and
thus modern.
This convention was established when postage stamps first came
into use - the UK was the first to issue them and therefore,
unlike any other country, was not required to put its name on its
own stamps. I don't think the same convention applies to coins -
I've seen a few coins from other countries that don't have the name.
UK stamps *do* have to have the king's/queen's head on them in the
place of the country name, regular stamps may consist of just this
and the price, but others may have the head as just a small
silhouette in a corner.
The "country name" on UK coins was part of the
You used to put India's name on them, up to Georgius Sextus. So
did
we, in fact, but we had "Canada" on the other side. CDB
The "country name" was part of the title of the king/queen rather
than
there as the country name. The "IND IMP" disappeared in 1948, when
India
gained independence, necessitating a slight redesign of the coinage.
The "REX BRIT" actually stood for "Rex Brittanorum" (not quite sure
this
is exactly the right Latin) meaning "King of all Britons". For the
first year of the current queen's reign, the title "REG BRIT"
occurred
on the coins, but this was withdrawn the next year and has not
occurred
on British coins since.
Imperial-colonial difference, then. Ours just said D.G.REX |
(1948-52*), with CANADA on the other side, with the icon of national
identity (maple leaf, beaver, Bluenose, caribou). CDB
____________________
*51? We were living in the States. News of home was scanty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Peter Duncanson wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | He should not be confused with St. Columbanus or any of the St.
Colmans.
|
They insist on your leaving something on the plate at St Colmans.
Made them rich.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | It's just occurred to me that Starsky or Hutch was called something
like Paul Michael-Glaser.
|
Unconfuse me, please. I met a violinist called Jack Glatzer many
years ago, but regularly hear of one called "Jack Glazer": are they
the same virtuoso?
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Mike Lyle spake thusly:
| Quote: | the Omrud wrote:
[...]
It's just occurred to me that Starsky or Hutch was called something
like Paul Michael-Glaser.
Unconfuse me, please. I met a violinist called Jack Glatzer many
years ago, but regularly hear of one called "Jack Glazer": are they
the same virtuoso?
|
Who, me? Sorry, I don't do violins. Nasty scratchy things.
American violinists are just too far beyond my sphere of musical
influence. British bassoonists of the 1990s: that I can do.
The Glatzer one has his own web site:
http://www.jackglatzer.com/
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:57:36 +0100, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 19 May 2005, CDB wrote:
"Andrew Gwilliam" <bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote in
Not to mention that the UK must be about the only country in the
world not
to put its name on its coins. I wonder why they stopped, I'm sure
it used
to be on there ("Rex. Brit.", or suchlike).
No country name on its stamps, either. Maybe we're being
minimalist, and
thus modern.
This convention was established when postage stamps first came
into use - the UK was the first to issue them and therefore,
unlike any other country, was not required to put its name on its
own stamps. I don't think the same convention applies to coins -
I've seen a few coins from other countries that don't have the name.
UK stamps *do* have to have the king's/queen's head on them in the
place of the country name, regular stamps may consist of just this
and the price, but others may have the head as just a small
silhouette in a corner.
|
I appreciate the historical point, but that was 150 years ago or so. The
merest blink of an eye in terms of British cultural evolution, though.
You seem to know much more about this sort of thing than I (just having a
traveller's interest in his accumulated numismatic souvenirs), but I find
that Brazil, Costa Rica, Poland, Spain (pre-Euro), Isle of Man, Peru,
Canada, Germany (pre-Euro), Portugal (pre-Euro), Jersey, Switzerland,
Hungary, France (pre-Euro), Denmark, Uruguay, the United States, Belgium
(pre-Euro), Guatemala, the Netherlands (pre-Euro), Panama, Zimbabwe, Cook
Islands, Argentina, Gibraltar, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Mexico, Ireland
(pre-Euro), Fiji, Israel, New Zealand, Australia, Austria (pre-Euro),
Slovakia, and Hong Kong (pre-reunification) all have the country's name on
the coins; I couldn't find any exceptions? Yes, I did just sit down and
check all of those. ;-)
I'm not quite sure what your point is regarding the monarch's head
(silhouette).
| Quote: | You used to put India's name on them, up to Georgius Sextus. So did
we, in fact, but we had "Canada" on the other side. CDB
The "country name" was part of the title of the king/queen rather than
there as the country name. The "IND IMP" disappeared in 1948, when India
gained independence, necessitating a slight redesign of the coinage.
The "REX BRIT" actually stood for "Rex Brittanorum" (not quite sure this
is exactly the right Latin) meaning "King of all Britons". For the
first year of the current queen's reign, the title "REG BRIT" occurred
on the coins, but this was withdrawn the next year and has not occurred
on British coins since.
|
I suspect that the expanded version of "Brit." has varied from time to
time. I've got a 1914 penny here which has "BRITT:OMN:REX" (inter alia),
which would certainly tie in with "King of All Britons", or maybe "King of
All Britain". A few other George V coins have the same thing, but my one
Victorian coin (an 1884 farthing) has "BRITT:REG" (and no reference to
India; I've got 1887 in my mind for creation of the new title?).
I wonder why they have the Rex/Regina afterwards, and not beforehand?
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:03:35 GMT, the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | Andrew Gwilliam spake thusly:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 02:00:31 +0100, Don Aitken wrote:
But there was a period, just before the ECB took over, when the
relevant body was the "Test and County Cricket Board", [...]
Ah, wasn't sure about that.
[...] which adhered to the old English tradition that it is unnecessary
to include the name of the country, all such things being English unless
otherwise specified. Cf Football Association, Rugby Union, etc.
Not to mention that the UK must be about the only country in the world not
to put its name on its coins. I wonder why they stopped, I'm sure it used
to be on there ("Rex. Brit.", or suchlike).
No country name on its stamps, either. Maybe we're being minimalist, and
thus modern.
Each country must put its name on its postal stamps, but "no name on
the stamps" is a concession given to the UK by the International
Postal Union or some such, in recognition of the fact that we
invented the things.
|
Interesting. {cough} I wonder if anyone has a reference to confirm that?
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:38:42 +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:57:45 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Areff wrote:
Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
I would've said that "Malcolm" was Scottish. But is it of Gaelic origin,
or is it another foreign import to go with David, Alexander, and so on[1]?
It appears to be native Gaelic, meaning "follower of the Dove [St.
Columba]".
Well, except that it contains an imported name inside it (Columba).
Columba is the Latin form of the Gaelic Colm.
He was born in Ireland (County Donegal) where he is known as Colm.
He is also known as Colm-cille [1], the suffix cille meaning "of the
Churches".
He should not be confused with St. Columbanus or any of the St. Colmans.
[1] Also Colmcille and Colm Cille
|
Is that "cille" of Gaelic origin? I can't see an obvious borrowing from
Latin or Greek, which must be pretty unusual for a European language.
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:22:01 +0100, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 18 May 2005, Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 13:48:42 GMT, the Omrud wrote:
It is, but I doubt they know he's Jewish. I didn't. It's not
something which would normally be mentioned here. I sometimes
discover that well-know people are Jewish, decades after I first
encountered them in the media. There are undoubtedly many more that
I haven't discovered. It's not normally a subject of discussion, any
more than being a Catholic would be.
I'm reminded about the fuss over the Labour poster showing Michael Howard
and Oliver Letwin as pigs.
It hadn't occurred to me that both were Jewish until the fuss was made.
If I had actually been asked "What is the religion of Michael Howard
and Oliver Letwin?", had I thought about it I would have ended up saying
"Oh, yes, they're both Jewish". But it's not something I was consciously
aware of before the fuss, I very much doubt most British people were
consciously aware of it, and I guess that includes those responsible for
the poster. The claim that the poster was deliberately intended as
a piece of anti-semitism was ridiculous, and the main effect of the fuss
was to remind anyone who might have vestigial anti-semitism of a fact
they probably hadn't thought of before. Of course, once it had been
pointed out, the posters took on a more sinister aspect and had to be
withdrawn.
|
I was equally unaware of either's religion, and would've had to guess if
asked. Since I think Howard's family came from Transylvania (!), I'd have
perhaps guessed that he was a Catholic, or maybe at a stretch belonged to
the Orthodox Church. What was stupid was that nobody at Labour bothered
checking; something like this could either be controversial or embarrassing
or totally inconsequential if it was part of a regular commercial
advertising campaign, but for a political party to make this sort of
blunder is stupidity on a number of levels (most obviously, on the
political one).
| Quote: | Or, perhaps, the brouhaha over a remark by Ken "I'm an iconoclast so I'm
allowed to be offensive" Livingston to a journalist who happened to be
Jewish.
Slightly different circumstances
|
Hence the "perhaps".
| Quote: | - Livingstone made a remark to the journalist likening him to a
concentration camp guard, the journalist pointed out that he was Jewish,
but Livingstone carried on with the insult and refused to apologise.
Livingstone ought to have backed down immediately, recognising that
likening a Jew to a concentration camp guard is a much nastier insult
than likening anyone else, and what was excusable before he knew his
victim was Jewish was inexcusable afterwards.
|
I'm fairly sure that he knew beforehand that the reporter was Jewish. At
the very least the remark was extremely crass, and the subsequent arrogant
refusal to apologise was, well, arrogant.
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:55:52 +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:05:15 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote:
Andrew Gwilliam spake thusly:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:18:25 +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 18:47:47 +0100, Andrew Gwilliam
bottomless_pit@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks it economic stupidity to use a business's
assets to fund massive loans to purchase said business, or is my naivety
preventing my becoming a successful multi-millionaire? It certainly seems
like madness in the case of a football club, it's not like they can open
more branches (unless I'm being woefully unimaginative).
Opening more branches is an interesting idea. They could start a "Manchester
United" in each soccer-playing country in the world. This could develop into
the Manchester United International Championship in which only MU teams
play. The Glazers are probably not ready for that sort of investment - they
need income.
Normally I would trot out the platitude that you have to spend money to
make money; but Mr Glazer appears to have a rather different approach (you
have to borrow on the basis of assets you don't possess in order to be able
to buy those assets). The banks are either very smart, or very dumb
(probably both, TBH).
But since he is a billionaire in his own right, he presumably has
enough money to pay off the debt. No doubt the banks have factored
this in.
He is only a 1.1 dollar billionaire (600m UKP). The MU takeover has cost
790m UKP. Only 260m was Glazer's own money, the rest was borrowed.
In terms that most of us can understand: he has effectively mortgaged Man U.
Roman Abramovich, who bought Chelsea FC, is way ahead of Glazer with an
estimated fortune of 7,500m UKP. It has only just crossed my mind, but he is
also Jewish.
|
I have a vague recollection that he hails from the so-called Jewish
Autonomous Region on the Russian Far-East; quite the denizen of gangsters
these days, I believe.
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Manchester temperature? |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam spake thusly:
| Quote: | On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:03:35 GMT, the Omrud wrote:
Andrew Gwilliam spake thusly:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 02:00:31 +0100, Don Aitken wrote:
But there was a period, just before the ECB took over, when the
relevant body was the "Test and County Cricket Board", [...]
Ah, wasn't sure about that.
[...] which adhered to the old English tradition that it is unnecessary
to include the name of the country, all such things being English unless
otherwise specified. Cf Football Association, Rugby Union, etc.
Not to mention that the UK must be about the only country in the world not
to put its name on its coins. I wonder why they stopped, I'm sure it used
to be on there ("Rex. Brit.", or suchlike).
No country name on its stamps, either. Maybe we're being minimalist, and
thus modern.
Each country must put its name on its postal stamps, but "no name on
the stamps" is a concession given to the UK by the International
Postal Union or some such, in recognition of the fact that we
invented the things.
Interesting. {cough} I wonder if anyone has a reference to confirm that?
|
Sure. My dad told me (when I was about four years old) so it must be
true.
OK, try this:
http://www.upu.int/union_postale/2002/union_postale_2002-3_en-fr.pdf
and search for "country name". It's a newsletter, not a regulation,
but it is published by the regulatory body.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in