Jump to Navigation

We've moved! The new address is http://www.henriettes-herb.com - update your links and bookmarks!

2003 10 B.

Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Congrats
From: st.ferd2.thristian.org (Screwtape)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 07:28:22 +1000

'Jeffrey Kaplan' wrote:
>Che Gannarelli said:
>; Commonwealth countries like .ca, .au, who still seem to think a foreign, unelected HOS is a good idea have, in addition to their own governments,
>Apparently, so do a majority of The Supremes, as they installed an unelected HOS here a few years ago.

Hmmm... If DMP became a horticulturist and got himself elected president, you could have a garden-HOS with sprinkler attachment.

Screwtape,
...Why waste all that time inventing and reciting a shaggy dog tale?


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Congrats
From: Ian Davis <not.all.certain>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 05:04:15 GMT

Jeffrey Kaplan <rhod.gordol.org> wrote:
> Or "next door". The only thing that is "next door" to .au is .nz and a lot of water.

Not true. We also have .id, and our own Wizard.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: steven <spam.pieceoftheuniverse.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:47:14 GMT

Henriette Kress wrote:
> Lane Gray, Czar Castic wrote:
>> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>> Dave "Where the heck did we get onto this?" Hinz
>> Because Hetta congratulated the strines on getting one of their own elected governor of .ca

... when she meant .ca.us. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what she meant.

> And I certainly didn't start the thread for you to get all tedious and things. I'm honestly about to killfile the lot of you.

But then you'll miss out on the inevitable transformation of this thread into a poker cascade. I give it maybe twenty more responses.

> After which it'll be rather quiet on rhod, granted, but at least there won't be boring boring boring 'mercan voting systems.

Voting is always dull, no matter the reason or method. Voting in the Olympics? Dull. Voting for pizza toppings? Dull. The reason why elections for public office are *especially* dull is that thare are so many people weighing in their opinions.

So I have a dream of a republic that doesn't vote in their representatives, but instead has them randomly selected from the populace. Everyone but the president serves one year; the POTUS serves two. Yes, it'll be terrible when Joe Billy Bob from Hicksville gets into the White House, but I honestly don't think it could be much worse than what we have today.

Alternatively, we could just have everyone who wants to run for office lined up and shot, and that would take care of *that*.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: Tom Harrington <tph.pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:06:10 -0600

steven <spam.pieceoftheuniverse.com> wrote:
> > Lane Gray, Czar Castic wrote:
> >> Dave Hinz wrote:
> >>> Dave "Where the heck did we get onto this?" Hinz
> >> Because Hetta congratulated the strines on getting one of their own elected governor of .ca
> ... when she meant .ca.us. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what she meant.

Don't be silly. Despite popular misconception, Canadia's not part of the USA. Yet.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: Kegs <me.privacy.net>
Date: 17 Oct 2003 16:03:20 +0100

steven <spam.pieceoftheuniverse.com> writes:
> So I have a dream of a republic that doesn't vote in their representatives, but instead has them randomly selected from the populace. Everyone but the president serves one year; the POTUS serves two. Yes, it'll be terrible when Joe Billy Bob from Hicksville gets into the White House, but I honestly don't think it could be much worse than what we have today.

I thought what you had at the moment was effectively Joe Billy Bob, from bumfuck, ohio, just with a rich family. ; )


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: "Daniel E. Macks" <dmacks.netspace.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:30:24 -0000

Lane Gray, Czar Castic <CGray2.kc.Pb.rr.com> said:
> Californicators, Massachusetts people (what is that noun of the collective, Jeffrey?),

"Massholes".

> Hoosiers, Sooners, and Sisterboinkers (from Mississippi)

dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies wonder if women from Utah call themselves "wives-in-law"


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: Richard Wilson <richard.molerat.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:34:43 +0100

steven <spam.pieceoftheuniverse.com> writes
> Henriette Kress wrote:
>> And I certainly didn't start the thread for you to get all tedious and things. I'm honestly about to killfile the lot of you.

Don't look at me. As a Brit, I'm still trying to get my brain round the idea of our political masters having to even get *near* 50% of the vote to claim a popular mandate.

>> After which it'll be rather quiet on rhod, granted, but at least there won't be boring boring boring 'mercan voting systems.
>Voting is always dull, no matter the reason or method. Voting in the Olympics? Dull. Voting for pizza toppings? Dull. The reason why elections for public office are *especially* dull is that there are so many people weighing in their opinions.

Nonsense, young man: voting for the Eurovision Song Contest is riveting. So all that is needed is for candidates for political office to get on a stage, do a glitzy, tasteless song and dance number, rip the skirts off the female backing vocalists, and... Oh, hang on, I'm thinking of Clinton.

>So I have a dream of a republic that doesn't vote in their representatives, but instead has them randomly selected from the populace. Everyone but the president serves one year; the POTUS

There's more than one of you, Steven?

-Richard Wilson-*----*----*-----*---richard killfiled, use rwilson-
--*----*---*---*-----*----who not only didn't vote for the Queen---
--*-----*--*----*----*----*--he didn't even lob her a scimitar-*---


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: Jellyroll Papadopoulos <jellyroll.the.pope.INVALIDpotnoodle.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 15:34:33 GMT

Also Sprach Richard Wilson:
> Don't look at me.

You must shake off these feelings of paranoia.

> As a Brit, I'm still trying to get my brain round the
> idea of our political masters having to even get *near* 50% of the vote
> to claim a popular mandate.

That's because we've been a multi-party system since about 1900.

A visit to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/politics.htm shows that, in the days when the Liberal Democrats were the Whigs and Labour was nowhere to be seen, majorities were the order of the day.

1832 Whig Majority 66.7%
1835 Whig Majority 57.4%
1837 Whig Majority 51.7%
1841 Conservative Majority [In this year the "Irish Repeal" party took 2.1% of the vote] 51.7%
1847 Whig Majority [In this year the "Irish Repeal" party took 3.1% of the vote] 53.9%
1852 Conservative Majority [In this year the Whigs had 58.4% of the vote but no majority] 41.4%
1857 Whig Majority 65.1%
1859 Whig Majority 65.7%
1865 Whig Majority 60.2%
1868 Liberal Majority 60.2%
1874 Conservative Majority
[In this year the Whigs had 52.7% of the vote but no majority]
[In this year the "Home Rule" party took 3.3% of the vote]
43.9%
1880 Liberal Majority [In this year the "Home Rule" party took 2.6% of the vote] 55.4%

The first sign of things being less simple came in 1885, where the vote was split by the Irish Nationalists:

1885 Conservative Party 43.5% 249 MPs
Liberal Party 47.4% 319 MPs
Irish Nationalists 6.9% 86 MPs

A year later, back to a majority but the beginnings of disproportionate representation:

1886 Conservative Party & Liberal Unionists 51.4% 393 MPs
Liberal Party 45.0% 192 MPs
Irish Nationalists 3.5% 85 MPs

Another split:

1892 Conservative Party & Liberal Unionists 47.0% 313 MPs
Liberal Party 45.1% 272 MPs
Irish Nationalists 7.0% 81 MPs

And then an Independent Labour Party threw the beginnings of a spanner in the works, and we see greater disproportionateness.

1895 Conservative Party & Liberal Unionists 49.1% 411 MPs
Liberal Party 45.7% 177 MPs
Irish Nationalists 4.0% 82 MPs
Independent Labour Party 1.0% 0 MPs
1900 Conservative Party & Liberal Unionists 50.3% 402 MPs
Liberal Party 45.0% 183 MPs
Irish Nationalists 3.5% 85 MPs
Labour Party 1.3% 2 MPs
1906 Liberal Party 49.4% 399 MPs
Conservative Party & Liberal Unionists 43.4% 156 MPs
Labour Party 4.8% 29 MPs
Irish Nationalists 0.7% 82 MPs

Two elections in 1910 produced Well-Hung Parliaments ("hung" = No Overall Majority):

Jan Conservative Party & Liberal Unionists 46.8% 272 MPs
Liberal Party 43.5% 274 MPs
Labour Party 7.0% 40 MPs
Irish Nationalists 1.9% 82 MPs
Dec Conservative Party & Liberal Unionists 46.6% 271 MPs
Liberal Party 42.2% 272 MPs
Labour Party 3.0% 42 MPs
Irish Nationalists 2.5% 85 MPs

Post-war it all started going horribly wrong, with a majority (coalition) parliament having less than 1/3 of the vote:

1918 Conservative Coalition 32.5% 332 MPs
Labour Party 20.8% 57 MPs
Liberal Party 13.0% 36 MPs
Conservative Party 6.2% 50 MPs
Sinn Fein 4.6% 73 MPs
NDP Coalition 1.5% 9 MPs
Labour Coalition 0.4% 4 MPs
Independent Coalition 0.1% 1 MPs

Next election saw the start of the three-horse race we now know and another hung parliament:

1923 Conservative Party 38.0% 258 MPs
Liberal Party 29.7% 158 MPs
Labour Party 30.7% 191 MPs
Irish Nationalists 0.4% 3 MPs
Communist Party 0.2% 0 MPs
1924 Conservative Party 46.8% 412 MPs
Labour Party 33.3% 151 MPs
Liberal Party 17.8% 40 MPs
Constitutionalist 1.2% 7 MPs
Communist Party 0.3% 1 MP
Sinn Fein 0.2% 0 MPs

I shall not bother citing parties with less than 1% of the vote from hereon - apologies to Welsh, Scottish and Irish Nationalists, Communists and Fascists (although any apologies to the latter are not in the least bit heartfelt).

The next year saw another Shrub-like result, with the highest-polling party not having the most seats and another hung parliament.

1929 Conservative Party 38.1% 260 MPs
Labour Party 37.1% 287 MPs
Liberal Party 23.5% 59 MPs

A return to some semblance of normality, but a disproportionately high majority for the votes cast. This was the last parliament to have >50% of the vote. History describes this and the next parliaments as "National".

1931 Conservative Party 55.0% 470 MPs
Labour Party 30.9% 52 MPs
Liberal Party 6.5% 32 MPs
National Liberals 3.7% 35 MPs
National Labour 1.5% 13 MPs
1935 Conservative Party 47.8% 387 MPs
Labour Party 38.0% 154 MPs
Liberal Party 6.7% 21 MPs
National Liberals 3.7% 33 MPs
National Labour 1.5% 1 MP
1945 Labour Party 48.0% 393 MPs
Conservative Party 36.2% 197 MPs
Liberal Party 9.0% 12 MPs
National Liberals 2.9% 11 MPs
1950 Labour Party 46.1% 315 MPs
Conservative Party 40.0% 282 MPs
Liberal Party 9.1% 16 MPs
National Liberal Party 3.4% 16 MPs

Another minority-vote government:

1951 Labour Party 48.8% 295 MPs
Conservative Party 44.3% 302 MPs
National Liberals 3.7% 19 MPs
Liberal Party 2.6% 6 MPs

And now it's just (just) a three-horse race.

1955 Conservative Party 49.7% 345 MPs
Labour Party 46.4% 277 MPs
Liberal Party 2.7% 6 MPs
1959 Conservative Party 49.4% 365 MPs
Labour Party 43.8% 258 MPs
Liberal Party 5.9% 6 MPs
1964 Labour Party 44.1% 317 MPs
Conservative Party 43.45 304 MPs
Liberal Party 11.2% 9 MPs
1966 Labour Party 48.0% 364 MPs
Conservative Party 41.9% 253 MPs
Liberal Party 8.6% 12 MPs
1970 Conservative Party 46.4% 330 MPs
Labour Party 43.1% 288 MPs
Liberal Party 7.5% 6 MPs

Two elections in 1974, the first rather messy and resulting in the "Lib-Lab Pact".

Feb Conservative Party 37.9% 297 MPs
Labour Party 37.2% 301 MPs
Liberal Party 19.3% 14 MPs
Scottish National Party 2.0% 7 MPs
Oct Labour Party 39.2% 319 MPs
Conservative Party 35.8% 277 MPs
Liberal Party 18.3% 13 MPs
Scottish National Party 2.9% 11 MPs
1979 Conservative Party 43.9% 339 MPs
Labour Party 36.9% 269 MPs
Liberal Party 13.8% 11 MPs
Scottish National Party 1.6% 2 MPs

The year the Social Democrats split the Labour vote:

1983 Conservative Party 42.4% 397 MPs
Labour Party 27.6% 209 MPs
Liberal Party 13.7% 17 MPs
Social Democratic Party 11.7% 6 MPs
Scottish National Party 1.1% 2 MPs
1987 Conservative Party 42.3% 376 MPs
Labour Party 30.8% 229 MPs
Liberal/Social Democrat Alliance 22.6% 22 MPs
Scottish National Party 1.3% 3 MPs
1992 Conservative Party 41.9% 336 MPs
Labour Party 34.4% 271 MPs
Liberal Democrats 17.6% 20 MPs
Scottish National Party 1.9% 3 MPs
1997 Labour Party 43.2% 418 MPs
Conservative Party 30.7% 165 MPs
Liberal Democrats 16.8% 46 MPs
Rainbow Party [Really] 2.6% 0 MPs
Scottish National Party 2.0% 6 MPs
2001 Labour Party 40.7% 412 MPs
Conservative Party 31.7% 166 MPs
Liberal Democrats 18.3% 52 MPs
Scottish National Party 1.8% 5 MPs
UK Independence Party 1.5% 0 MPs

I have no idea what all this means, and it in no way tells us why Dubya is a dangerous eejit, Blair is a poodle, Ian and Duncan Smith are the dullest leaders the Conservatives have ever had and the Lib Dems seem to think it's OK to be led by people with red hair, but that's no reason not to bore everyone shitless by posting it, is it?


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: Jellyroll Papadopoulos <jellyroll.the.pope.INVALIDpotnoodle.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:12:18 GMT

Sprach Lane Gray, Czar Castic:
> I thought y'all had "proportional representation" or something like it.

Nope. "First past the post".

The mechanism of PR advocated by the Lib Dems is "STV", the Single Transferable Vote. Everyone gives their preferred candidate 10 points, their next preferred 9 points, and so on down to their least preferred, for 1 point (or whatever - with four candidates it would be 4, 3 2 and 1, obviously).

The fun part about this is that Tory voters would never vote Labour, and vice versa. As a result, the Tory candidate would get maximum votes from Tory voters, minimum from Labour ones, and the Labour candidate would get maximum votes from Labour supporters, minimum from Tory ones.

The next step is the most fun. The candidate with least votes is eliminated, and his/her votes are then redistributed according to the next preferences in the ballots. But the candidate with least votes is likely to be the Labour candidate in Tory strongholds, the Tory candidate in Labour strongholds. Now, we already know that the eliminated candidate is unlikely to contribute to the votes of his/her bitter rival. Instead the elimination will boost the votes of the middle-ground candidates...say, the Lib Dem candidate. The same is likely to happen with each successive round. At the end of it the inevitable winner in many many seats will be the Lib Dems, and they'll end up with a majority in Parliament.

It has been said that STV results in a Parliament comprising the most innocuous and least disliked candidates, rather than the most liked ones. I look forward to its introduction.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: ossipewsk.hotmail.com (Richard Fitzpatrick)
Date: 19 Oct 2003 19:24:05 -0700

Jellyroll Papadopoulos wrote ...
> The next step is the most fun. The candidate with least votes is eliminated, and his/her votes are then redistributed according to the next preferences in the ballots.

Australia has this, kind of. But it doesn't end up giving the results Malc and the UK_LDs seem to extrapolate.

> But the candidate with least votes is likely to be the Labour candidate > in Tory strongholds, the Tory candidate in Labour strongholds.

That turns out emphatically not the case. Well, perhaps in true Tory/Labour "strongholds" where the relevant candidate gets well over 50% of the initial count of "first preferences" - in seats that safe, the other major party may not even bother to run a candidate. Anyway, in those instances in Australia counting ceases, because >50% of the voters in that electorate want that candidate. If no one gets >50% of first prefs, then it proceeds as Malc describes. Sort of.

Okay. **cough** <mode=wibbling and probably not really correct, but close enough for handgrenades and horseshoes>

We have mandatory voting here for Commonwealth (read Federal or National) and State/Territorial (read Provincial etc) elections. Since you *must* vote, the system attempts to ensure that your vote *must* count towards the total score for your electorate - not discarded as it may be if you vote for a minor candidate in a FPTP system.

So, the system effectively says "you may not get your first preference. Who would you next most want/least not want?" And so on.

Let's say no candidate polled >50% of first prefs. Let's also say you voted for the candidate who polled the lowest number of first prefs. They check all the votes for your candidate for the second prefs, which get distributed according to the voter's wishes. If that pushes someone over the line (>50%), counting ceases. If it doesn't, the same process occurs with the second least popular candidate. The second preferences *that* candidate got from the first eliminated candidate (your clown) get distributed as third preferences. And this goes on until someone gets >50%.

Getting back to my earlier point ["emphatically not the case"]... In our experience, second prefs *rarely* get distributed to middle ground parties in anything like enough numbers to make up for their usually poor showing in the first prefs. Mainstream voters for Labor [note different spelling from UKoGBaNI] and the Coalition (Liberal + National Parties) will often vote for the other major party before voting for the Nazi, Communist, Party! Party! Party!, Surprise Party, Abolish Self-Government Coalition, No Self Government Party [SPLITTERS!] or the Sun-Ripened Warm Tomato Party. [Not kidding: http://www.elections.act.gov.au/result89.html].

Another reason - only the votes for the *least popular* candidates (by definition) get distributed. Therefore very low numbers get distributed and they rarely (although not never) elevate a lower-ranked candidate to first place.

In addition, except in "true" strongholds (where one of the major party candidates gets >50% straight off the bat and preferences don't even enter into it), the second scoring candidate usually comes from the "other" major party and hence, their votes do not get distributed.

> Now, we already know that the eliminated candidate is unlikely to contribute to the votes of his/her bitter rival. Instead the elimination will boost the votes of the middle-ground candidates... say, the Lib Dem candidate. The same is likely to happen with each successive round. At the end of it the inevitable winner in many many seats will be the Lib Dems, and they'll end up with a majority in Parliament.

Cogently argued, but not supported in this little petri dish, I'm afraid.

> It has been said that STV results in a Parliament comprising the most innocuous and least disliked candidates, rather than the most liked ones. I look forward to its introduction.

Excellent - both the saddest and funniest thing I've read this week.

Dang, Lane - this E-Prime is hard. 'S'why I only used it for the main explanation.
--
Richard, whose dull green Kampuchean loving ghoti did miss a vote in 1984.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: Ian Davis <not.all.certain>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:38:49 GMT

ossipewsk.hotmail.com (Richard Fitzpatrick) wrote:
> Richard Fitzpatrick wrote...
> > <mode=wibbling and probably not really correct, but close enough for handgrenades and horseshoes>
> Drat.
> </mode>

You *knew* that you would get no sleep tonight because of this, didn't you?

Ian, pedant-at-large.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: steven <spam.pieceoftheuniverse.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:44:21 GMT

Jellyroll Papadopoulos wrote:
> I have no idea what all this means, and it in no way tells us why Dubya is a dangerous eejit, Blair is a poodle, Ian and Duncan Smith are the dullest leaders the Conservatives have ever had and the Lib Dems seem to think it's OK to be led by people with red hair, but that's no reason not to bore everyone shitless by posting it, is it?

I am of the opinion that all the above is true because people are allowed to vote. The trouble is, the other systems of government are usually worse, and I'm personally against taxation without representation (so even if I were to take over, I'd be inclined to let the people have their way).

So the *real* trouble is: idiots are allowed to run, and idiots are allowed to vote.

Which leads to the question: how dumb is too dumb, and how do we tell? And -- probably more importantly -- how do we get around those pesky laws (in the US, the 14th Amendment) so we can stop them?


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: "Daniel E. Macks" <dmacks.netspace.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:36:45 -0000

Jeffrey Kaplan <rhod.gordol.org> said:
> Viki said:
> ; Viki, hoping for a revolution in the county in November so that I can get a
> You say you want a revolution?
> ; new boss and hopefully a promotion. Perhaps the new boss would buy the office enough paper and other supplies, even. What a concept.
> So you're going to vote for the candidate that promises office supplied.

It's that whole trickle-down economics again. The gub'mint gives you a new boss, which results in you getting more office supplies, which results in you having more office supplies at home, which results in your kids having better book-report diaramas and science-fair displays, which results in their getting higher grades, so they get into better colleges and eventually earn more money so they can put you in a nicer nursing home.

dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies are off to the wheelchair races


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: steven <spam.pieceoftheuniverse.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:04:49 GMT

Viki wrote:
> Tell me, how can I file a brief with the Court when the office is out of (1) paper, (2) toner for the copier, (3) binding tape and/or strips for the automatic binding machine and (4) parts for the printer.

Apparently, there's a massive conspiracy to make the legal system go completely electronic. Fight it! The only thing stopping legal documents from being hundreds of thousands of pages long is that much paper would supply it's own gravitational field. Electronic forms have few such hindrances.

> All these things have been in short supply for a while except for the paper, which is a recent development.

See? Conspiracy!

Hmmm. I just noticed that the word "conspiracy" has "piracy" in it. I would go further with that thought, but this isn't ARK.

> But, the computer nazis had five hours to come and "work on" my computer the other day, and perform some "upgrade" which was supposed to take 45 minutes and make everything go faster, but instead everything goes s--l--o--w--e--r...
> *sigh*

Sigh indeed. The computer nazis aren't doing their job very well if you notice a difference. A *smart* computer nazi would have done two or all of the following:

  1. made sure you didn't receive a fast computer in the first place.
  2. harvested the new computer for components, replacing them with the innards of a 486 system (and that's being generous).
  3. If 1 and 2 were not immediately possible, bog your system resources down so that the effect, when they did get around to it, would be negligible.

Geez, this stuff used to be common knowledge. What is the world coming to?

> On the bright side, I'll be getting a private office sometime. When it gets new furniture. I figure round about 2011.

It takes that long to decorate an office? What are they going to do, carpet it in field mice pelts? Sure, they could use ciy mice, but that would be fururban, which is a different thing entirely.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: Tom Harrington <tph.pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:31:36 -0600

Jellyroll Papadopoulos <jellyroll.the.pope.INVALIDpotnoodle.net> wrote:
> Also Sprach steven:
> > Hmmm. I just noticed that the word "conspiracy" has "piracy" in it. I would go further with that thought, but this isn't ARK.
> The word "constipation" has "tipation" in it. I would go further with this thought, but I'm trying not to tipate too much since I discovered my beard was embedded rather than simply being attached.

And the word "constituent" has the word "tit" in it, which explains why politicians like their constituents so much.

From: "Viki" <vvidt.netscape.net>
And the word "Constantinople" has the word "tin" in it, which explains the lovely metalwork that comes from that part of Asia.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: Ian Davis <not.all.certain>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 03:46:53 GMT

Tom Harrington <tph.pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:
> And the word "constituent" has the word "tit" in it, which explains why politicians like their constituents so much.

Which puts me in mind of a rather lateral reply and phonetic joke.
Context:
The famous Australian politician, Sir Robert "Ming" Menzies, Liberal Party.
Another political party was known then as the Country Party.
A story that may or may not be apocryphal.

Ming was giving a political speech and was being heckled by one particular man in the crowd. The man grew louder and louder disagreeing with Menzies' policies, until he finally shouted, "I'm a Country member!"
Ming: "I'll remember."


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: GW De Lacey <georgew.dnet.aunz.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 13:36:07 +1300

Jellyroll Papadopoulos wrote:
>Also Sprach steven:
>> But then you'll miss out on the inevitable transformation of this thread into a poker cascade. I give it maybe twenty more responses.
>I'll see your twenty more responses and raise you seventy-six trombones[0].

I'll see your tuneless ensemble and raise you my Sunday best[1]

>[0] That song would have been very different if Meredith Wilson hadn't been sponsored to write "The Music Man" by "Klonsky's Trombone Emporium" of Dunkirk, New York. This is lucky, however, as the only rival bid would have resulted in a song called "Fourteen Glockenspiels", which doesn't scan.

[1] I heard that there was a third tender - "135 Out of Tune Accordions" but the judges were afraid of anarchic, unruly mobs. This is rather strange of course when you consider the damage that could be done to rioting populations by, say, 50 mounted cannon in a battery, thundering thundering all along the way.

Of course the bureaucratic mindset has fathomless depths...


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: Al Sharka <asharka.my-deja.com>
Date: 19 Oct 2003 11:41:32 GMT

Donald Welsh wrote:
> Viki wrote:
>> "Richard Fitzpatrick" <ossipewsk.hotmail.com> wrote
>> : At least Ian's back - but he might start complaining about Straya's compulsory voting laws.
>> Dear Gussie, there's so many ijits here I'm glad that's not in force in these parts.
> Are stupid and foolish people allowed to vote in your country?

Not only are they the only ones who vote, but they're the only ones that run for office as well.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: Phil Smith <pas51.NOSPAMcam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:12:05 +0100

Daniel E. Macks wrote in rec.humor.oracle.d:
> steven <spam.pieceoftheuniverse.com> said:
> > Jellyroll Papadopoulos wrote:
> >> Also Sprach steven:
> >>> But then you'll miss out on the inevitable transformation of this thread into a poker cascade. I give it maybe twenty more responses.
> >> I'll see your twenty more responses and raise you seventy-six trombones[0].
> > So here's a puzzler for you: if I hadn't said that there was going to be a poker cascade, would there have?
> > I'll leave you to nurse your headache while I go investigate this strage humming coming from Heisenburg's grave ...
> "Schrodinger may not be here, man."

"Animal Rights Activists Storm Physics Department

"Acting on a tipoff from a disgruntled PhD student, Arts Students For The Debasement of Science, a group whose wide-ranging charter includes support for animal rights, today laid siege to the Physics Department's Schroedinger Building.

"They allege that members of the Quantum research group are considering conducting inhumane experiments on cats, and have called for a halt to these activities.

"A departmental spokesman revealed that the department had attempted to explain that the experiment was merely a thought experiment designed to highlight the impact of observation on quantum systems, but that ASFDT 'appeared unable to understand these arguments', and added that 'no physicist in his right mind would actually attempt to perform this experiment'."


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: "Daniel E. Macks" <dmacks.netspace.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:17:40 -0000

Phil Smith <pas51.NOSPAMcam.ac.uk> said:
> a group whose wide-ranging charter includes support for animal rights, today laid siege to the Physics Department's Schroedinger Building.

A number of years ago, PETA (or some similar group) protested at the university where I worked at the time. They visited many buildings, including the chemistry building (that does not do any animal work) but ignored the whole biomed complex (that does).

dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies like it when folks protest outside furriers while wearing leather shoes


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: Donald Welsh <dwelsh.melbpc.org.au>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:06:48 +1000

Phil Smith wrote:
> "A departmental spokesman ... added that 'no physicist in his right mind would actually attempt to perform this experiment'."

A-ha! So they *are* doing it, then!


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: Ian Davis <not.all.certain>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:27:55 GMT

Tom Harrington <tph.pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:
> Not to mention the polytheists...

The polytheists?


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Politcal Rant (Was: Re: Congrats)
From: "Daniel E. Macks" <dmacks.netspace.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:58:06 -0000

Jellyroll Papadopoulos <jellyroll.the.pope.INVALIDpotnoodle.net> said:
> Also Sprach steven:
>> But then you'll miss out on the inevitable transformation of this thread into a poker cascade. I give it maybe twenty more responses.
> I'll see your twenty more responses and raise you seventy-six trombones[0].
> [0] That song would have been very different if Meredith Wilson hadn't been sponsored to write "The Music Man" by "Klonsky's Trombone Emporium" of Dunkirk, New York. This is lucky, however, as the only rival bid would have resulted in a song called "Fourteen Glockenspiels", which doesn't scan.

Just because something shouldn't doesn't mean it doesn't...

%%
Yeah, fourteen glockenspiels led the RHOD brigade
With an out-of-tune violin under-foot
They were followed by rows and rows of Dumpy's finest hoes
"The cream of Texas", so said Dan.

Yeah, fourteen glockenspiels 'round the lighted stage
With a hundred and ten corsets heaped behind
Of the dozen barely-clad teens (but I think some were queens
They had horns they simply could not hide).

Girls wore tops or bottoms so skimpy and danced to tunes
Shimmying, shimmiying, all along the way.
Double-D sil'coniums and big ass. Poon?
Each lass's poon lured the men to pay.

There were fifty swelling cannon in the audience
Thundering, thundering, louder than before
Oggling gents who'd give a buck and desperate men who'd try their luck
For a date later on that night to score.

Yeah, fourteen glockenspiels played a background tune
While two cute strumpets swung around on the pole
To the rhythmic chime chime chime
They were naked in no time
And their dancing thrill won the day
%%

dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies cause trouble in River City


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Nobel News
From: Donald Welsh <dwelsh.melbpc.org.au>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:39:10 +1000

Ken Adams wrote:
> The Delaware has no smell that I can detect. Of course, I live upstream from Philly, so who knows what it's like below...

At the risk of being overgeneral, rivers tend to be a bit damp from below.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Random thoughts
From: Tom Harrington <tph.pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:13:38 -0600

1. My phone was recently out of service for a few days due to some sort of trouble on the part of the phone company. For some reason, though I had no dial tone, my DSL service worked. After calling the evil overlords (on my cell phone, natch), they sent out a technician who helpfully broke the line even worse, leaving me with neither voice nor DSL. I guess my line wasn't broken enough for them or something. Then I called them again, and apparently they had no idea anything was wrong with my line. The third time I called they still had no idea that repairs might be needed.

2. Once service was restored (today), it was only 20 minutes before I had a telemarketer call me. Well, a recording of a telemarketer. Of course, this was for a political candidate, so the no-call list doesn't apply to them.

3. The phone trouble is presumably due to the fact that phones were installed in my neighborhood back when telephones were a brand new gadget weighing as much as an anvil, with hand cranks on the front, and people answered them by saying "ahoy, ahoy!". I don't know what the
telco's nearby box looks like, but I'm guessing my home phone wiring is representative: A rat's nest of wires (some exposed) that resembles one of those rainbow afro wigs. I don't dare mess with it; back when I used a modem, and people warned that only the very best house wiring could achieve 56kbps (or 53, or whatever it was) I had no trouble doing so, even though the aforementioned phone-fro was followed by something like 100 feet of miscellaneous patched phone cables. My theory is that the afro is inhabited by a friendly telephone pixie, and I don't want to do anything to disturb it.

4. In the mail today: Yet another item offering me some sort of special benefits due to my status as a military veteran. Never mind the fact that I've never done any military service. Unless the Boy Scouts count. My wife, a real vet, never gets these offers. Maybe if I'd joined the officer's wives club back when I had the chance, I wouldn't get asked to join the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) now.

5. Anytime you call any organization where you've got to navigate a phone menu, they _always_ say, "please listen carefully, as our options have changed recently". How often does this happen that they need to tell you this all the time? Do they reorganize these things daily?

6. Is it just me, or are PayPal users more, umm, likely to become confused, than the general internet-using population?

7. I ordered a bunch of computery stuff which arrived a couple of days ago. One item-- a software title included free with one of the other items-- was not present. When I called the vendor, they guy asked me if I had "tried everything". I was momentarily stunned. Was he going to tell me to reboot my computer and see if that fixed things? "I've, um, looked in the box, if that's what you mean...". That was apparently what he wanted to know.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Battle cry
From: "Daniel E. Macks" <dmacks.netspace.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:13:31 -0000

Eli the Bearded <*.eli.users.panix.com> said:
> Jeffrey Kaplan <rhod.gordol.org> wrote:
>> http://bdmonkeys.net/~chaz/battle.php
> } Zang! Who is that, stalking on the mountains! It is Elijah, hands clutching a sharpened screwdriver! And with a booming roar, his voice cometh:
> } "I'm going to beat you backwards in time, and throw you out the window!!!"
> Sharpened screwdriver: nah, didn't work with Goetz

That's because a screwdriver is clearly better-suited to mountain combat.

> Throw you out the window: I'd use 'defenistrate'

s/nis/nes/

> Elijah
> ------
> what about the thirty-six inch bolt cutters? when do they get used?

I don't know, but a lot of ladies are gonna be pretty mad if you get it anywhere near my yard-stick.

dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies wonder why they call it "getting a piece" if they want the whole thing


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Something to ponder
From: "Daniel E. Macks" <dmacks.netspace.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:51:56 -0000

Al Sharka <asharka.my-deja.com> said:
> John D wrote:
>> Reminds me of one IQ test question that I'm certain was scored against me - pick which is most different in the list: horse, goat, mule, kangaroo. I'm sure they say kangaroo, because it goes about on two legs.
> And carries its young in a pouch.

And is polysyllabic.

>> I say it's the mule, because there is no naturally occuring population.
> Yabbut, the goat is the only animal with horns, and the horse is distinct, because there's nothing about it that is simultaneously distinct from the other three, wheras the other three can be easily distinguished.

Horse is the only one used in races. Nobody ever looks at me in the shower and says "damn, Dan, you're hung like a {kangaroo,goat,mule}!" Horse is the only one that is also a verb.

> -- Al, err, a kangaroo is a mammal, right?

And this affects your amorous plans how?

dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies play pocket pool


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Dangit, Daniel E. Macks
From: Ian Davis <not.all.certain>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 07:53:12 GMT

Chris Wesling <wesling.nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Er, that explanation fails to explain any connection between "Warren" and "Wazza". From the hint about "Shazza" being short for "Sharon" (although it's NOT actually shorter, either in letters or syllables), are you implying that "Wazza" is a common nickname Down Unda for "Warren"? How... unusual.
> For that matter, since "Wazza" and "Shazza" would presumably be rhyming nicknames, are you implying that "Warren" and "Sharon" are normally pronounced so as to rhyme with each other in Strine?

Chris, we've met, you and I. You've heard me speak. You know how intelligible or otherwise my speech is. Do you really want us to enlighten you on Australian linguistics? From a country that calls men with red hair "Bluey?"

No, they don't rhyme. "Warren" is pronounced "WOH-ren" with a short o sound and therefore of course "Wazza" is "WOH-zah." "Sharon" is of course pronounced "SHA-ron" with a short a sound and "Shazza" is accordingly pronounced "SHA-zah," the first a also being short. Any non-native speaker of English would understand immediately that the profound differences in the pronunciation of Wazza and Shazza are intuitively obvious.

Anyway, Warren is what you call a man with a hundred rabbits up his bum. <OWIE! -Hetta>


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Now there's a sterling referral
From: Al Sharka <asharka.my-deja.com>
Date: 25 Oct 2003 13:07:39 GMT

The latest "Inches Fast" spam I got had this as part of the Subject: line to convince me that it was legit:

"As seen in the National Enquirer"

I suppose that they have the intended audience captured perfectly. If you believe one, you'll be likely to believe the other.

For any across-the-pondians that may not know, the National Enquirer is one of those sensationalist rags without even the redeeming benefits of having a "Page 3" pictorial.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Snow!
From: Ian Davis <not.all.certain>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:29:16 GMT

David Robley <robleyd[spam].ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Snow. I've heard lots about that stuff and seen it a couple of times in other places which are a long way from here.
> Lucky Kiwis only have to drive a few hours from just about anywhere to their snowfields. When there is snow, of course.
> JPEG?

I couldn't attach the image, so I've pasted it inline, as below.









Sorry it's low resolution but I was concerned about taking up too much bandwidth.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Snow!
From: steven <spam.pieceoftheuniverse.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:37:14 GMT

Ian Davis wrote:
> David Robley <robleyd[spam].ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Snow. I've heard lots about that stuff and seen it a couple of times in other places which are a long way from here.
>> Lucky Kiwis only have to drive a few hours from just about anywhere to their snowfields. When there is snow, of course.
>> JPEG?
> I couldn't attach the image, so I've pasted it inline, as below.
<snip>
> Sorry it's low resolution but I was concerned about taking up too much bandwidth.

This is not a binary newsfroup! You could post to rec.humor.oracle.binary, provide a URL, or draw up some snazzy ASCII art, but your actions will not be tolerated.

Unfortunately, the FAQ doesn't outline what sort of punishments we can exact in order to rebalance the scales of justice, but that's why we put the ol' girl in a blindfold, after all.


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Snow!
From: Tom Harrington <tph.pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:21:17 -0700

Donald Welsh <dwelsh.melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> steven wrote:
> > your actions will not be tolerated.
> > Unfortunately, the FAQ doesn't outline what sort of punishments we can exact in order to rebalance the scales of justice, ...
> Our chief weapon is the barbecue, and Nathan for cascades. Two! Our two chief weapons are the barbecue and Nathan and Hetta for poker cascades. Three! Our three weapons are the barbecue and Nathan and Hetta and DMP poking sharp things into his willy. Four! Our four weapons are the barbecue and Nathan and Hetta and DMP and The URL. I'm sorry, I'll come in again.

Quick! Lock the door when he steps out!


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: FYI: TV viewing op
From: "Daniel E. Macks" <dmacks.netspace.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:46:02 -0000

Chris Wesling <wesling.nospam.invalid> said:
> For those of you who remember when Freyja used to post here and would like a chance to see her on TV, she'll be in the audience of the Jerry Springer show on Tuesday, October 28, if they didn't edit her out for time reasons. She's the voluptuous redhead in a wheelchair, wearing a chainmail bra, who ticks off a guest so badly by asking "Where'd they *grow* you?" that he tries to come off the stage and fight her.

I saw the Q&T&A of two Springers this morning. They kinda blur together in my head but I remember two questions from women in the audience that consisted of "I traveled all the way from $place so I could show my tits on national TV", and harrassment of a midget guest on stage. The topic of one show was cheating spouses, incuding a topless lesbian couple with which one of the audience members smooched. A couple of audience members were trying to convince a male guest that having sex with another man made him gay, and a woman asked if he was a tight end or a wide receiver. Okay, so these could describe any Springer at all.

But I didn't see anything from any chainmail-embrassiered women. Were either of these the right ep?

dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies feel dirty just watching the show, but in a good way


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Any one have $100 million dollars I can borrow?
From: "Daniel E. Macks" <dmacks.netspace.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:22:11 -0000

Jeffrey Kaplan <rhod.gordol.org> said:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/

Tapping zero-point energy? That's *so* yesterday's technology. Tell ya what: I'll sell you rights for a patent for a modern perpetual motion machine for only $10K.

dan, whose bright red Siamese fighting fishies are off to reread the "URL Time: work safe, for the Physicists" thread


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: Now this is a nifty "404" error page
From: Chris Wesling <wesling.nospam.invalid>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:32:03 -0800

"Daniel E. Macks" wrote:
> Jeffrey Kaplan <rhod.gordol.org> said:
> > http://homokaasu.org/whatever

That *is* pretty nifty, though a little buggy. Sometimes the ball would go right through my paddle instead of bouncing back from it. Then again, if it hadn't done that fairly often my game might never have ended...

> The high score list for the 404 page is broken.

Yeah, pity. What'd you get? I got 1118 my first try.

> If that's not in the top 10 for "sentences I thought I'd never type"...

Really. That's right up there with "The teddy bear spoke excellent Mandarin."


Newsgroups: rec.humor.oracle.d
Subject: Re: So proud
From: "Viki" <vvidt.netscape.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 04:02:11 GMT

"Daniel E. Macks" <dmacks.netspace.org> wrote
: ra <rannett.hotmail.com> said:
: >> > The Oracle is a collaborative project. The question's an important part of the process. So, celebrate!
: >> OK.
: > Is it bad form to say in the newsgroup what the questions/answers were?
: Is there anything about this froup that *isn't* in bad form?

Me, of course.



Main menu 2