With the news on the Trump shooting, I am being more critical on
moderating the group.
I suspect the feds will be reviewing social media like USENET looking
for clues
Roy
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:38:06 -0700, Roy wrote:
With the news on the Trump shooting, I am being more critical on
moderating the group.
I suspect the feds will be reviewing social media like USENET looking
for clues
Roy
I doubt they know it exists ....
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:38:06 -0700, Roy wrote:
With the news on the Trump shooting, I am being more critical on
moderating the group.
I suspect the feds will be reviewing social media like USENET looking
for clues
Roy
I doubt they know it exists ....
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:07:47 -0700 (PDT),
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:38:06 -0700, Roy wrote:
With the news on the Trump shooting, I am being more critical on
moderating the group.
I suspect the feds will be reviewing social media like USENET looking
for clues
Roy
I doubt they know it exists ....
Was Usenet ever social media? With the constant attention by some to
stay on topic, I viewed it as anti-social media
"Roy" wrote in message news:v6va4u$3r3fp$[email protected]...
With the news on the Trump shooting, I am being more critical on
moderating the group.
I suspect the feds will be reviewing social media like USENET looking
for clues
Roy
Can you provide more specific guidelines here? Are any topics, such as
the events of last Saturday, now off-limits? Can we talk about the
Judge Cannon decision?
In other words, what's in and what's out, if anything?
--
With the news on the Trump shooting, I am being more critical on moderating >the group.
I suspect the feds will be reviewing social media like USENET looking for >clues
Roy
"Roy" wrote in message news:v6va4u$3r3fp$[email protected]...
With the news on the Trump shooting, I am being more critical on
moderating the group.
I suspect the feds will be reviewing social media like USENET looking
for clues
Roy
Can you provide more specific guidelines here? Are any topics, such
as the events of last Saturday, now off-limits? Can we talk about the
Judge Cannon decision?
In other words, what's in and what's out, if anything?
"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote in news:v75vfq$1a2n3$[email protected]:
[quoted text muted]
as the events of last Saturday, now off-limits? Can we talk about the Judge Cannon decision?
In other words, what's in and what's out, if anything?
I think the idea is to avoid saying things that could at all sound like threats, including veiled or implied threats. Right not the Secret Service is a little on edge, so we don't want to give them any reason to worry.
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:05:18 -0700 (PDT), Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote in news:v75vfq$1a2n3$[email protected]:
[quoted text muted]
as the events of last Saturday, now off-limits? Can we talk about the
Judge Cannon decision?
In other words, what's in and what's out, if anything?
I think the idea is to avoid saying things that could at all sound like
threats, including veiled or implied threats. Right not the Secret Service >> is a little on edge, so we don't want to give them any reason to worry.
The fact that ordinary people have to result to such self-censorship
is truly distressing. There was no credible threat in anything that
was said, so it's protected by the First Amendment, or at least it
used to be.
Don't get me wrong, I defer to the Moderator in making the decision
to cut off that thread. It's just disheartening to see people refrain
from legal speech for fear a quasi police force will take an interest
and do something.
Even though I'm 77, don't have a gun, my back hurts,
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:45:43 -0700, micky wrote:
Even though I'm 77, don't have a gun, my back hurts,
You might just get a call from the Democrat Party ...
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:45:43 -0700, micky wrote:
Even though I'm 77, don't have a gun, my back hurts,
You might just get a call from the Democrat Party ...
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 18 Jul 2024 13:50:01 -0700 (PDT),
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:45:43 -0700, micky wrote:
Even though I'm 77, don't have a gun, my back hurts,
You might just get a call from the Democrat Party ...
It's properly called the Democratic Party. Democrat Party was coined by
the Republicans when they started into their cult stage because they
couldn't bear to call the other party democratic.
You're from the UK so you're forgiven (this time).
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 18 Jul 2024 13:50:01 -0700 (PDT),
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:45:43 -0700, micky wrote:
Even though I'm 77, don't have a gun, my back hurts,
You might just get a call from the Democrat Party ...
It's properly called the Democratic Party. Democrat Party was coined by
the Republicans when they started into their cult stage because they
couldn't bear to call the other party democratic.
You're from the UK so you're forgiven (this time).
"micky" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 18 Jul 2024 13:50:01 -0700 (PDT), >>Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:45:43 -0700, micky wrote:
Even though I'm 77, don't have a gun, my back hurts,
You might just get a call from the Democrat Party ...
It's properly called the Democratic Party. Democrat Party was coined
by the Republicans when they started into their cult stage because
they couldn't bear to call the other party democratic.
You're from the UK so you're forgiven (this time).
The term was apparently first used as far back as 1889 by a Republican congressman named Jacob Gallinger before being more popularized in the
late 1940s and 1950s. Here's an interesting Wikipedia article on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
The article suggests that Republicans use the term more as a zinger -
because Democrats don't like it - than for any real substantive
reason.
There is also a simple grammatical explanation for the usage. If you
are a Republican, you are a member of the Republican Party. If you
are a Socialist, you are a member of the Socialist Party. If you are
a Libertarian, you are a member of the Libertarian party. So if you
are a Democrat, doesn't it male sense that you are a member of the
Democrat Party?
You're from the UK so you're forgiven (this time).
"micky" wrote in message news:[email protected]... >>
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 18 Jul 2024 13:50:01 -0700 (PDT), >>Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:45:43 -0700, micky wrote:
Even though I'm 77, don't have a gun, my back hurts,
You might just get a call from the Democrat Party ...
It's properly called the Democratic Party. Democrat Party was coined by >>the Republicans when they started into their cult stage because they >>couldn't bear to call the other party democratic.
You're from the UK so you're forgiven (this time).
The term was apparently first used as far back as 1889 by a Republican >congressman named Jacob Gallinger before being more popularized in the late >1940s and 1950s. Here's an interesting Wikipedia article on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
The article suggests that Republicans use the term more as a zinger -
because Democrats don't like it - than for any real substantive reason.
There is also a simple grammatical explanation for the usage. If you are a >Republican, you are a member of the Republican Party. If you are a >Socialist, you are a member of the Socialist Party. If you are a >Libertarian, you are a member of the Libertarian party. So if you are a >Democrat, doesn't it male sense that you are a member of the Democrat Party?
"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote in news:v7dtdb$318du$[email protected]:
"micky" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 18 Jul 2024 13:50:01 -0700 (PDT), >>>Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:45:43 -0700, micky wrote:
Even though I'm 77, don't have a gun, my back hurts,
You might just get a call from the Democrat Party ...
It's properly called the Democratic Party. Democrat Party was coined
by the Republicans when they started into their cult stage because
they couldn't bear to call the other party democratic.
You're from the UK so you're forgiven (this time).
The term was apparently first used as far back as 1889 by a Republican
congressman named Jacob Gallinger before being more popularized in the
late 1940s and 1950s. Here's an interesting Wikipedia article on the
subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
The article suggests that Republicans use the term more as a zinger -
because Democrats don't like it - than for any real substantive
reason.
There is also a simple grammatical explanation for the usage. If you
are a Republican, you are a member of the Republican Party. If you
are a Socialist, you are a member of the Socialist Party. If you are
a Libertarian, you are a member of the Libertarian party. So if you
are a Democrat, doesn't it male sense that you are a member of the
Democrat Party?
"Democrat" is a noun, "democratic" is an adjective. So no, saying
"democrat party" is not grammatical.
Yes, but the point is that with most other major US parties, the party name and the description of a member of the party is the same. Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist, Liberal, throw in
Federalist and Whig - with each of these the word describes both the party and the member.
While I realize there may be some minor exceptions like the
States Rights or Green parties, the point is that the Democratic party is unique among major US parties in that you need a different name to describe the party member from the party. Even though Republicans probably do use the term "Democrat Party" mainly just to be snarky, there is some logic to what they are doing.
On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:22:24 -0700 (PDT), Rick wrote:
Yes, but the point is that with most other major US parties, the party
name
and the description of a member of the party is the same. Republican,
Conservative, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist, Liberal, throw in
Federalist and Whig - with each of these the word describes both the
party
and the member.
That's because for all those words, the adjective and the noun are
identical.
While I realize there may be some minor exceptions like the
States Rights or Green parties, the point is that the Democratic party is
unique among major US parties in that you need a different name to
describe
the party member from the party. Even though Republicans probably do
use
the term "Democrat Party" mainly just to be snarky, there is some logic
to
what they are doing.
No, there isn't any logic to it; it is _entirely_ just to be snarky.
A party called The X Party uses the adjective form of X, and for
Democrats that's "Democratic". A person who is an adherent of The X
Party is called by the noun form of X.
I never heard the Democratic Party miscalled the Democrat party until
Nixon started doing it in the 1970s, so I was surprised to read here
that the misusage started earlier.
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message >news:[email protected]...
"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote in news:v7dtdb$318du$[email protected]:
"micky" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 18 Jul 2024 13:50:01 -0700 (PDT), >>>>Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:45:43 -0700, micky wrote:
Even though I'm 77, don't have a gun, my back hurts,
You might just get a call from the Democrat Party ...
It's properly called the Democratic Party. Democrat Party was coined >>>>by the Republicans when they started into their cult stage because
they couldn't bear to call the other party democratic.
You're from the UK so you're forgiven (this time).
The term was apparently first used as far back as 1889 by a Republican
congressman named Jacob Gallinger before being more popularized in the
late 1940s and 1950s. Here's an interesting Wikipedia article on the
subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
The article suggests that Republicans use the term more as a zinger -
because Democrats don't like it - than for any real substantive
reason.
There is also a simple grammatical explanation for the usage. If you
are a Republican, you are a member of the Republican Party. If you
are a Socialist, you are a member of the Socialist Party. If you are
a Libertarian, you are a member of the Libertarian party. So if you
are a Democrat, doesn't it male sense that you are a member of the
Democrat Party?
"Democrat" is a noun, "democratic" is an adjective. So no, saying >>"democrat party" is not grammatical.
Yes, but the point is that with most other major US parties, the party name >and the description of a member of the party is the same. Republican,
Conservative, Libertarian, Communist, Socialist, Liberal, throw in
Federalist and Whig - with each of these the word describes both the party >and the member. While I realize there may be some minor exceptions like the >States Rights or Green parties, the point is that the Democratic party is >unique among major US parties in that you need a different name to describe >the party member from the party.
Even though Republicans probably do use
the term "Democrat Party" mainly just to be snarky, there is some logic to >what they are doing.
the Democratic party is unique among major US parties in that you need a different name to describe the party member from the party.
"micky" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:07:47 -0700 (PDT),
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:38:06 -0700, Roy wrote:
With the news on the Trump shooting, I am being more critical on
moderating the group.
I suspect the feds will be reviewing social media like USENET looking
for clues
Roy
I doubt they know it exists ....
Was Usenet ever social media? With the constant attention by some to
stay on topic, I viewed it as anti-social media
Along with AOL IM, it was certainly the closest thing to social media
back in the day. Nowadays, it's highly niche and really limited largely
to older people with some technical expertise to even know how the
navigate the groups, and I suspect the total number of users is probably smaller than we realize. I personally don't think I know anyone in my personal circle of relatives and acquaintances who has ever heard of or
used Usenet.
--
On 7/15/2024 10:52 AM, Rick wrote:
"micky" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:07:47 -0700 (PDT),
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:38:06 -0700, Roy wrote:
With the news on the Trump shooting, I am being more critical on
moderating the group.
I suspect the feds will be reviewing social media like USENET looking >>>>> for clues
Roy
I doubt they know it exists ....
Was Usenet ever social media? With the constant attention by some to
stay on topic, I viewed it as anti-social media
Along with AOL IM, it was certainly the closest thing to social media
back in the day. Nowadays, it's highly niche and really limited
largely to older people with some technical expertise to even know how
the navigate the groups, and I suspect the total number of users is
probably smaller than we realize. I personally don't think I know
anyone in my personal circle of relatives and acquaintances who has
ever heard of or used Usenet.
--
Hey, who are you calling "old"?! *looks into mirror* Oh...never mind.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 714 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 136:28:42 |
| Calls: | 12,087 |
| Files: | 14,997 |
| Messages: | 6,517,376 |