Britain's Atomic Bomb Scandal

[The Todal]

This documentary was broadcast recently on Channel 4, and was about the
young British sailors who witnessed the H bomb tests (Operation Grapple)
on Christmas Island in 1957-8. Also those who witnessed tests in
Australia in 1952-7.

The claim is that they have had long term health problems - cancers of
various types - and that many of their children were born deformed. And
that they are denied compensation by a callous UK government.

I found it very disappointing, a missed opportunity to set out a
persuasive case for compensation. One irritation was the presenter who
pronounced it "nucular" instead of "nuclear". Why do people, some of
them important politicians, do that?

There was no input from doctors or scientists, only from ex-servicemen
and their grown up children, and a newspaper reporter.

No explanation for why all these servicemen were assembled on the island
to witness the explosion, if not as guinea-pigs to find out the effect
of the radiation on them. And if that was the purpose, presumably
government scientists produced reports, maybe secret in those days,
evaluating the evidence and monitoring the effects for years or decades.
One troubling allegation is that all the film badges worn by the
servicemen to monitor their exposure were just collected up and thrown
in the rubbish. Still, that is what you might expect to happen after the
readings had been written down somewhere.

It might be a major scandal or, also possible, it might be that the
cancers and the birth defects were explicable as statistically normal or
caused by other factors. Maybe there should be a public inquiry but
first there ought to be full disclosure from the MoD.

But anyone making a documentary ought to provide a careful analysis of
this House of Commons briefing document:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9903/CBP-9903.pdf

[Roger Hayter]

Post by The Todal
This documentary was broadcast recently on Channel 4, and was about the
young British sailors who witnessed the H bomb tests (Operation Grapple)
on Christmas Island in 1957-8. Also those who witnessed tests in
Australia in 1952-7.
The claim is that they have had long term health problems - cancers of
various types - and that many of their children were born deformed. And
that they are denied compensation by a callous UK government.
I found it very disappointing, a missed opportunity to set out a
persuasive case for compensation. One irritation was the presenter who
pronounced it "nucular" instead of "nuclear". Why do people, some of
them important politicians, do that?
There was no input from doctors or scientists, only from ex-servicemen
and their grown up children, and a newspaper reporter.
No explanation for why all these servicemen were assembled on the island
to witness the explosion, if not as guinea-pigs to find out the effect
of the radiation on them. And if that was the purpose, presumably
government scientists produced reports, maybe secret in those days,
evaluating the evidence and monitoring the effects for years or decades.
One troubling allegation is that all the film badges worn by the
servicemen to monitor their exposure were just collected up and thrown
in the rubbish. Still, that is what you might expect to happen after the
readings had been written down somewhere.
It might be a major scandal or, also possible, it might be that the
cancers and the birth defects were explicable as statistically normal or
caused by other factors. Maybe there should be a public inquiry but
first there ought to be full disclosure from the MoD.
But anyone making a documentary ought to provide a careful analysis of
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9903/CBP-9903.pdf

The decision to give them a medal would have made a good, if cynical, episode
of "Yes, Minister".

[Pancho]

Post by The Todal
It might be a major scandal or, also possible, it might be that the
cancers and the birth defects were explicable as statistically normal or
caused by other factors. Maybe there should be a public inquiry but
first there ought to be full disclosure from the MoD.

That is the nub of it. There needs to be proof that there was a
statistically significant raised level of problems. I very much doubt
this exists.

The first place I looked was for statistical evidence from survivors of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, first Google hit said no "No statistically
significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy
outcomes was seen among children of survivors."

So very unlikely there would be a significant result for far fewer and
less exposed servicemen.

With the birth defects claim looking suspect, I doubt the other claims too.

[Spike]

Post by Pancho

Post by The Todal
It might be a major scandal or, also possible, it might be that the
cancers and the birth defects were explicable as statistically normal or
caused by other factors. Maybe there should be a public inquiry but
first there ought to be full disclosure from the MoD.

That is the nub of it. There needs to be proof that there was a
statistically significant raised level of problems. I very much doubt
this exists.
The first place I looked was for statistical evidence from survivors of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, first Google hit said no "No statistically
significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy
outcomes was seen among children of survivors."
So very unlikely there would be a significant result for far fewer and
less exposed servicemen.
With the birth defects claim looking suspect, I doubt the other claims too.

There may be two routes by which servicemen became irradiated during the
tests.

The first is direct radiation dose from a detonating weapon. The human body
has a considerable ability to repair whole-body radiation damage, basically
overnight. It is the reason that the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model
favoured by the environmentalists is discredited and leads to serious
overestimates of casualties.

The second is ingestion or inhalation of radioactive particles, which can
lodge in the lungs and digestive system, or travel to other parts of the
body. This is far harder to model and the body’s ability to repair the
highly-local damage may be overcome.

There was a TV documentary many years ago about the UK’s test programme,
which included an account of servicemen there dining on the local sea food.
Someone put a radiation counter on a plate of fish, which proved to be
highly irradiated. IIRC, the tester was asked not to make this known to the
squaddies.

I doubt the documentary is still available.

[miked]

Post by Spike

Post by Pancho

Post by The Todal
It might be a major scandal or, also possible, it might be that the
cancers and the birth defects were explicable as statistically normal or
caused by other factors. Maybe there should be a public inquiry but
first there ought to be full disclosure from the MoD.

That is the nub of it. There needs to be proof that there was a
statistically significant raised level of problems. I very much doubt
this exists.
The first place I looked was for statistical evidence from survivors of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, first Google hit said no "No statistically
significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy
outcomes was seen among children of survivors."
So very unlikely there would be a significant result for far fewer and
less exposed servicemen.
With the birth defects claim looking suspect, I doubt the other claims too.

There may be two routes by which servicemen became irradiated during the
tests.
The first is direct radiation dose from a detonating weapon. The human body
has a considerable ability to repair whole-body radiation damage, basically
overnight. It is the reason that the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model
favoured by the environmentalists is discredited and leads to serious
overestimates of casualties.
The second is ingestion or inhalation of radioactive particles, which can
lodge in the lungs and digestive system, or travel to other parts of the
body. This is far harder to model and the body’s ability to repair the
highly-local damage may be overcome.
There was a TV documentary many years ago about the UK’s test programme,
which included an account of servicemen there dining on the local sea food.
Someone put a radiation counter on a plate of fish, which proved to be
highly irradiated. IIRC, the tester was asked not to make this known to the
squaddies.
I doubt the documentary is still available.

yes what about the effect of all the material from the tests that fell
into the sea. surely it went into the food chain and is still there many
years later? Would you eat fish from near bikini atoll? Just 1 bomb was
dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but more than 20 tests were done at
Bikini atoll which remains far too radioactive for human habitation.

mike

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Pancho

Post by The Todal
It might be a major scandal or, also possible, it might be that the
cancers and the birth defects were explicable as statistically normal or
caused by other factors. Maybe there should be a public inquiry but
first there ought to be full disclosure from the MoD.

That is the nub of it. There needs to be proof that there was a
statistically significant raised level of problems. I very much doubt
this exists.
The first place I looked was for statistical evidence from survivors of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, first Google hit said no "No statistically
significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy
outcomes was seen among children of survivors."
So very unlikely there would be a significant result for far fewer and
less exposed servicemen.
With the birth defects claim looking suspect, I doubt the other claims too.

I doubt the military sent any pregnant staff to these tests, but there was an
excess of morbidity affecting pregnant Hiroshima survivors and their
offspring. There was also a marked cancer excess among survivors. Some dose
dependence was shown.

It was extraordinarily incompetent or devious of the government not to have
kept records of radiation exposure, seeing they measured it at the time, if
crudely.

Having said that, there may well be no evidence of harm to those exposed to
the British tests, but they certainly haven't been treated respectfully by the
government.

[Pancho]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Pancho

Post by The Todal
It might be a major scandal or, also possible, it might be that the
cancers and the birth defects were explicable as statistically normal or
caused by other factors. Maybe there should be a public inquiry but
first there ought to be full disclosure from the MoD.

That is the nub of it. There needs to be proof that there was a
statistically significant raised level of problems. I very much doubt
this exists.
The first place I looked was for statistical evidence from survivors of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, first Google hit said no "No statistically
significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy
outcomes was seen among children of survivors."
So very unlikely there would be a significant result for far fewer and
less exposed servicemen.
With the birth defects claim looking suspect, I doubt the other claims too.

I doubt the military sent any pregnant staff to these tests, but there was an
excess of morbidity affecting pregnant Hiroshima survivors and their
offspring.

Yeah, I was assuming none of the servicemen were pregnant.

Post by Roger Hayter
There was also a marked cancer excess among survivors. Some dose
dependence was shown.

Well yes, we know large doses kill, especially in the short term. It is
the small doses, long term we are interested in. Spike touches on this
by mentioning the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model. It seems to be that
current thinking is that we overestimate the risk of low level
radiation, in comparison to other things.

This has very serious consequences on the modern world in that it
discourages development of peaceful nuclear energy. I recently heard an
analogy of comparing radiation to electricity. Both can be dangerous,
and kill, but we don't take hugely expensive precautions to protect
people from 1.5v batteries, where as we do to protect people from very
small levels of exposure to radiation from the nuclear industry.

In essence, I see this kind of documentary as scare mongering,
perpetuating the myth that small exposures to radiation are dangerous,
in the same way we had scare mongering about vaccines causing autism.

Post by Roger Hayter
It was extraordinarily incompetent or devious of the government not to have
kept records of radiation exposure, seeing they measured it at the time, if
crudely.

Well information doesn't just organise itself, it gets lost, it costs to
preserve, and to make accessible. I had an NHS blood test this time last
year. The GP surgery were obstructive about letting me see my medical
records (tech incompetence, not spite) and many months later, when I
asked them to take an action dependent upon the test, the GP denied any
evidence that test had be done. This is all in a world with brilliant
computer storage and data processing, imagine how messed up data could
get in the 1950s.

Post by Roger Hayter
Having said that, there may well be no evidence of harm to those exposed to
the British tests, but they certainly haven't been treated respectfully by the
government.

The government only has so much respect to give and plenty of categories
that deserve more. Old fashioned air pollution, springs to mind.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Pancho

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Pancho

Post by The Todal
It might be a major scandal or, also possible, it might be that the
cancers and the birth defects were explicable as statistically normal or
caused by other factors. Maybe there should be a public inquiry but
first there ought to be full disclosure from the MoD.

That is the nub of it. There needs to be proof that there was a
statistically significant raised level of problems. I very much doubt
this exists.
The first place I looked was for statistical evidence from survivors of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, first Google hit said no "No statistically
significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy
outcomes was seen among children of survivors."
So very unlikely there would be a significant result for far fewer and
less exposed servicemen.
With the birth defects claim looking suspect, I doubt the other claims too.

I doubt the military sent any pregnant staff to these tests, but there was an
excess of morbidity affecting pregnant Hiroshima survivors and their
offspring.

Yeah, I was assuming none of the servicemen were pregnant.

Post by Roger Hayter
There was also a marked cancer excess among survivors. Some dose
dependence was shown.

Well yes, we know large doses kill, especially in the short term. It is
the small doses, long term we are interested in. Spike touches on this
by mentioning the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model. It seems to be that
current thinking is that we overestimate the risk of low level
radiation, in comparison to other things.
This has very serious consequences on the modern world in that it
discourages development of peaceful nuclear energy. I recently heard an
analogy of comparing radiation to electricity. Both can be dangerous,
and kill, but we don't take hugely expensive precautions to protect
people from 1.5v batteries, where as we do to protect people from very
small levels of exposure to radiation from the nuclear industry.
In essence, I see this kind of documentary as scare mongering,
perpetuating the myth that small exposures to radiation are dangerous,
in the same way we had scare mongering about vaccines causing autism.

Post by Roger Hayter
It was extraordinarily incompetent or devious of the government not to have
kept records of radiation exposure, seeing they measured it at the time, if
crudely.

Well information doesn't just organise itself, it gets lost, it costs to
preserve, and to make accessible. I had an NHS blood test this time last
year. The GP surgery were obstructive about letting me see my medical
records (tech incompetence, not spite) and many months later, when I
asked them to take an action dependent upon the test, the GP denied any
evidence that test had be done. This is all in a world with brilliant
computer storage and data processing, imagine how messed up data could
get in the 1950s.

Post by Roger Hayter
Having said that, there may well be no evidence of harm to those exposed to
the British tests, but they certainly haven't been treated respectfully by the
government.

The government only has so much respect to give and plenty of categories
that deserve more. Old fashioned air pollution, springs to mind.

That applies to money. I am not sure it applies to respect. Many of them were
not given the information they asked for at the time when it would have been
available.

[The Todal]

Post by Pancho

Post by The Todal
It might be a major scandal or, also possible, it might be that the
cancers and the birth defects were explicable as statistically normal
or caused by other factors. Maybe there should be a public inquiry but
first there ought to be full disclosure from the MoD.

That is the nub of it. There needs to be proof that there was a
statistically significant raised level of problems. I very much doubt
this exists.
The first place I looked was for statistical evidence from survivors of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, first Google hit said no "No statistically
significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy
outcomes was seen among children of survivors."
So very unlikely there would be a significant result for far fewer and
less exposed servicemen.
With the birth defects claim looking suspect, I doubt the other claims too.

In the documentary, a rather overweight woman who is the daughter of one
of the Christmas Islands sailors, claimed that her Type 2 Diabetes might
be caused by the bomb.

I know it's a bit mean to point this out - she also had various other
ailments she wanted to cite, but I think the documentary needed better
editorial input.

[Adam Funk]

Post by The Todal
This documentary was broadcast recently on Channel 4, and was about the
young British sailors who witnessed the H bomb tests (Operation Grapple)
on Christmas Island in 1957-8. Also those who witnessed tests in
Australia in 1952-7.
The claim is that they have had long term health problems - cancers of
various types - and that many of their children were born deformed. And
that they are denied compensation by a callous UK government.
I found it very disappointing, a missed opportunity to set out a
persuasive case for compensation. One irritation was the presenter who
pronounced it "nucular" instead of "nuclear". Why do people, some of
them important politicians, do that?

It's because "nuclear" (pronounced the official way) is the only word
in English ending in those two unstressed syllables, whereas there a
lot of words like "jocular", "particular", etc.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by The Todal
This documentary was broadcast recently on Channel 4, and was about the
young British sailors who witnessed the H bomb tests (Operation Grapple)
on Christmas Island in 1957-8. Also those who witnessed tests in
Australia in 1952-7.
The claim is that they have had long term health problems - cancers of
various types - and that many of their children were born deformed. And
that they are denied compensation by a callous UK government.
I found it very disappointing, a missed opportunity to set out a
persuasive case for compensation. One irritation was the presenter who
pronounced it "nucular" instead of "nuclear". Why do people, some of
them important politicians, do that?

It's because "nuclear" (pronounced the official way) is the only word
in English ending in those two unstressed syllables, whereas there a
lot of words like "jocular", "particular", etc.

That's not entirely true; there are other words with the same ending. For
example, "polynuclear", which is term used in chemistry, and "pronuclear",
which does not, in fact, mean in favour of nuclear, but is a term used in
biology. But "nuclear" is probably the most well-known term with that
ending.

Mark

[Adam Funk]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Adam Funk

Post by The Todal
This documentary was broadcast recently on Channel 4, and was about the
young British sailors who witnessed the H bomb tests (Operation Grapple)
on Christmas Island in 1957-8. Also those who witnessed tests in
Australia in 1952-7.
The claim is that they have had long term health problems - cancers of
various types - and that many of their children were born deformed. And
that they are denied compensation by a callous UK government.
I found it very disappointing, a missed opportunity to set out a
persuasive case for compensation. One irritation was the presenter who
pronounced it "nucular" instead of "nuclear". Why do people, some of
them important politicians, do that?

It's because "nuclear" (pronounced the official way) is the only word
in English ending in those two unstressed syllables, whereas there a
lot of words like "jocular", "particular", etc.

That's not entirely true; there are other words with the same ending. For
example, "polynuclear", which is term used in chemistry, and "pronuclear",
which does not, in fact, mean in favour of nuclear, but is a term used in
biology. But "nuclear" is probably the most well-known term with that
ending.

Fair point --- but I think those words are not in even the passive
vocabulary of most people!

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Adam Funk

Post by The Todal
This documentary was broadcast recently on Channel 4, and was about the
young British sailors who witnessed the H bomb tests (Operation Grapple)
on Christmas Island in 1957-8. Also those who witnessed tests in
Australia in 1952-7.
The claim is that they have had long term health problems - cancers of
various types - and that many of their children were born deformed. And
that they are denied compensation by a callous UK government.
I found it very disappointing, a missed opportunity to set out a
persuasive case for compensation. One irritation was the presenter who
pronounced it "nucular" instead of "nuclear". Why do people, some of
them important politicians, do that?

It's because "nuclear" (pronounced the official way) is the only word
in English ending in those two unstressed syllables, whereas there a
lot of words like "jocular", "particular", etc.

That's not entirely true; there are other words with the same ending. For
example, "polynuclear", which is term used in chemistry, and "pronuclear",
which does not, in fact, mean in favour of nuclear, but is a term used in
biology. But "nuclear" is probably the most well-known term with that
ending.

Fair point --- but I think those words are not in even the passive
vocabulary of most people!

There are also polymorphonuclear neutrophils, but they are generally just
called polymorphs.

[Spike]

Post by The Todal
This documentary was broadcast recently on Channel 4, and was about the
young British sailors who witnessed the H bomb tests (Operation Grapple)
on Christmas Island in 1957-8. Also those who witnessed tests in
Australia in 1952-7.
The claim is that they have had long term health problems - cancers of
various types - and that many of their children were born deformed. And
that they are denied compensation by a callous UK government.
I found it very disappointing, a missed opportunity to set out a
persuasive case for compensation. One irritation was the presenter who
pronounced it "nucular" instead of "nuclear". Why do people, some of
them important politicians, do that?

On the pronunciation aspect of nuclear vs. newkewleer, I find that
newsreaders and sports commentators pronunciation of ‘Wemberly’ and
‘smuggerlers’ particularly irritating.

And the BBC seem to have chosen unilaterally to pronounce Netanyahu as
Ne’anyahu.

[Les. Hayward]

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
This documentary was broadcast recently on Channel 4, and was about the
young British sailors who witnessed the H bomb tests (Operation Grapple)
on Christmas Island in 1957-8. Also those who witnessed tests in
Australia in 1952-7.
The claim is that they have had long term health problems - cancers of
various types - and that many of their children were born deformed. And
that they are denied compensation by a callous UK government.
I found it very disappointing, a missed opportunity to set out a
persuasive case for compensation. One irritation was the presenter who
pronounced it "nucular" instead of "nuclear". Why do people, some of
them important politicians, do that?

On the pronunciation aspect of nuclear vs. newkewleer, I find that
newsreaders and sports commentators pronunciation of ‘Wemberly’ and
‘smuggerlers’ particularly irritating.
And the BBC seem to have chosen unilaterally to pronounce Netanyahu as
Ne’anyahu.

The one which always annoys me is the 'meet with' instead of just 'meet'!

[Davey]

On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 08:23:12 +0100

Post by Les. Hayward

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
This documentary was broadcast recently on Channel 4, and was
about the young British sailors who witnessed the H bomb tests
(Operation Grapple) on Christmas Island in 1957-8. Also those who
witnessed tests in Australia in 1952-7.
The claim is that they have had long term health problems -
cancers of various types - and that many of their children were
born deformed. And that they are denied compensation by a callous
UK government.
I found it very disappointing, a missed opportunity to set out a
persuasive case for compensation. One irritation was the presenter
who pronounced it "nucular" instead of "nuclear". Why do people,
some of them important politicians, do that?

On the pronunciation aspect of nuclear vs. newkewleer, I find that
newsreaders and sports commentators pronunciation of ‘Wemberly’ and
‘smuggerlers’ particularly irritating.
And the BBC seem to have chosen unilaterally to pronounce Netanyahu
as Ne’anyahu.

The one which always annoys me is the 'meet with' instead of just 'meet'!

An imported Americanism.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Davey
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 08:23:12 +0100

Post by Les. Hayward

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
This documentary was broadcast recently on Channel 4, and was
about the young British sailors who witnessed the H bomb tests
(Operation Grapple) on Christmas Island in 1957-8. Also those who
witnessed tests in Australia in 1952-7.
The claim is that they have had long term health problems -
cancers of various types - and that many of their children were
born deformed. And that they are denied compensation by a callous
UK government.
I found it very disappointing, a missed opportunity to set out a
persuasive case for compensation. One irritation was the presenter
who pronounced it "nucular" instead of "nuclear". Why do people,
some of them important politicians, do that?

On the pronunciation aspect of nuclear vs. newkewleer, I find that
newsreaders and sports commentators pronunciation of ‘Wemberly’ and
‘smuggerlers’ particularly irritating.
And the BBC seem to have chosen unilaterally to pronounce Netanyahu
as Ne’anyahu.

The one which always annoys me is the 'meet with' instead of just 'meet'!

An imported Americanism.

Like the inverse American grammatical error, debate someone rather than debate
with someone.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Roger Hayter
Like the inverse American grammatical error, debate someone rather than debate
with someone.

Harry boxed Larry, Harry raced Larry (athletics), Harry played Larry (tennis)
Harry debated Larry

Harry and Larry were direct opponents in a contest

Where "with" is synonymous with "against"

Harry boxed with Larry, Harry raced with Larry, Harry played with Larry, Harry debated
with Larry.

Both Harry and Larry were members of the same boxing, athletics, or tennis
club or debating society - but never necessarily opposed one another

Where "with" is synonymous with "alongside"


bb

[Roger Hayter]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
Like the inverse American grammatical error, debate someone rather than debate
with someone.

Harry boxed Larry, Harry raced Larry (athletics), Harry played Larry (tennis)
Harry debated Larry
Harry and Larry were direct opponents in a contest
Where "with" is synonymous with "against"
Harry boxed with Larry, Harry raced with Larry, Harry played with Larry, Harry debated
with Larry.
Both Harry and Larry were members of the same boxing, athletics, or tennis
club or debating society - but never necessarily opposed one another
Where "with" is synonymous with "alongside"
bb

Try doing the same with "argued".

[billy bookcase]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
Like the inverse American grammatical error, debate someone rather than debate
with someone.

Harry boxed Larry, Harry raced Larry (athletics), Harry played Larry (tennis)
Harry debated Larry
Harry and Larry were direct opponents in a contest
Where "with" is synonymous with "against"
Harry boxed with Larry, Harry raced with Larry, Harry played with Larry, Harry debated
with Larry.
Both Harry and Larry were members of the same boxing, athletics, or tennis
club or debating society - but never necessarily opposed one another
Where "with" is synonymous with "alongside"
bb

Try doing the same with "argued".

As with boxing, athletics, and tennis, the point about debating is that it's a
recognised activity having its own clubs and societies; and is subject to specific rules.

Unlike "arguing" which may amount to little more than people shouting at one another,
waving their arms about, or even throwing things.

Which is why there are no "Arguing Societies" or "Arguing.Clubs".



bb

[Bill Borland]

In article <vce65h$pir$***@dont-email.me>, billy bookcase <***@anon.com>
writes

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
Like the inverse American grammatical error, debate someone rather than

debate

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
with someone.

Harry boxed Larry, Harry raced Larry (athletics), Harry played Larry (tennis)
Harry debated Larry
Harry and Larry were direct opponents in a contest
Where "with" is synonymous with "against"
Harry boxed with Larry, Harry raced with Larry, Harry played with Larry,

Harry

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase
debated
with Larry.
Both Harry and Larry were members of the same boxing, athletics, or tennis
club or debating society - but never necessarily opposed one another
Where "with" is synonymous with "alongside"
bb

Try doing the same with "argued".

As with boxing, athletics, and tennis, the point about debating is that it's a
recognised activity having its own clubs and societies; and is subject to specific rules.
Unlike "arguing" which may amount to little more than people shouting at one another,
waving their arms about, or even throwing things.
Which is why there are no "Arguing Societies" or "Arguing.Clubs".

How much longer is this going to go on?

Surely the main reason for "nucular" is that THAT is how one recent US
politician - President, ex-President, would-be-President - can't
remember - pronounced the word and at one period he was very vocal on
the subject. Do I mean very "vocular"? - no, "vocal", I think either
will do. Add to that the fact that it is an (otherwise) uncommon word
and the average reader sees the WORD without looking at the spelling.

Please, let's have an end to this before the thread drifts right off
the screen.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Bill Borland
writes

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
Like the inverse American grammatical error, debate someone rather than

debate

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
with someone.

Harry boxed Larry, Harry raced Larry (athletics), Harry played Larry (tennis)
Harry debated Larry
Harry and Larry were direct opponents in a contest
Where "with" is synonymous with "against"
Harry boxed with Larry, Harry raced with Larry, Harry played with Larry,

Harry

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase
debated
with Larry.
Both Harry and Larry were members of the same boxing, athletics, or tennis
club or debating society - but never necessarily opposed one another
Where "with" is synonymous with "alongside"
bb

Try doing the same with "argued".

As with boxing, athletics, and tennis, the point about debating is that it's a
recognised activity having its own clubs and societies; and is subject to specific rules.
Unlike "arguing" which may amount to little more than people shouting at one another,
waving their arms about, or even throwing things.
Which is why there are no "Arguing Societies" or "Arguing.Clubs".

How much longer is this going to go on?
Surely the main reason for "nucular" is that THAT is how one recent US
politician - President, ex-President, would-be-President - can't
remember - pronounced the word and at one period he was very vocal on
the subject.

Not forgetting U.S. presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, George
W. Bush and vice president Walter Mondale, along with Oxford professor Marcus
du Sautoy, Orson Welles, Edward Teller, Indiana Jones, and Homer Simpson *.

To name just a few...

Post by Bill Borland
do I mean very "vocular"? - no, "vocal", I think either
will do. Add to that the fact that it is an (otherwise) uncommon word
and the average reader sees the WORD without looking at the spelling.
Please, let's have an end to this before the thread drifts right off
the screen.

Would that be before or after achieving World Peace, and an End to Poverty
in our Lifetimes ?

As obviously, reversing Global Warming and renegotiating Brexit are lost causes.


bb


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucular

[Adam Funk]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Bill Borland
Surely the main reason for "nucular" is that THAT is how one recent US
politician - President, ex-President, would-be-President - can't
remember - pronounced the word and at one period he was very vocal on
the subject.

Not forgetting U.S. presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, George
W. Bush and vice president Walter Mondale, along with Oxford professor Marcus
du Sautoy, Orson Welles, Edward Teller, Indiana Jones, and Homer Simpson *.
To name just a few...

Post by Bill Borland
do I mean very "vocular"? - no, "vocal", I think either
will do. Add to that the fact that it is an (otherwise) uncommon word
and the average reader sees the WORD without looking at the spelling.
Please, let's have an end to this before the thread drifts right off
the screen.

Would that be before or after achieving World Peace, and an End to Poverty
in our Lifetimes ?
As obviously, reversing Global Warming and renegotiating Brexit are lost causes.
bb
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucular

Interesting, especially Zwicky's theory, which I agree with. I had
forgotten about comparatives like "pricklier", but I guess those are
semantically significantly different from -cular terms.

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
Like the inverse American grammatical error, debate someone rather than debate
with someone.

Harry boxed Larry, Harry raced Larry (athletics), Harry played Larry (tennis)
Harry debated Larry
Harry and Larry were direct opponents in a contest
Where "with" is synonymous with "against"
Harry boxed with Larry, Harry raced with Larry, Harry played with Larry, Harry debated
with Larry.
Both Harry and Larry were members of the same boxing, athletics, or tennis
club or debating society - but never necessarily opposed one another
Where "with" is synonymous with "alongside"
bb

Try doing the same with "argued".

As with boxing, athletics, and tennis, the point about debating is that it's a
recognised activity having its own clubs and societies; and is subject to specific rules.
Unlike "arguing" which may amount to little more than people shouting at one another,
waving their arms about, or even throwing things.
Which is why there are no "Arguing Societies" or "Arguing.Clubs".

"Argue" and "debate" are near-synonymous.

Many people assume that "argue" always means something ill-willed,
bad-tempered and contumelious. But it doesn't.

I have often been asked to argue a case. It used to be my job.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
Like the inverse American grammatical error, debate someone rather than debate
with someone.

Harry boxed Larry, Harry raced Larry (athletics), Harry played Larry (tennis)
Harry debated Larry
Harry and Larry were direct opponents in a contest
Where "with" is synonymous with "against"
Harry boxed with Larry, Harry raced with Larry, Harry played with Larry, Harry
debated
with Larry.
Both Harry and Larry were members of the same boxing, athletics, or tennis
club or debating society - but never necessarily opposed one another
Where "with" is synonymous with "alongside"
bb

Try doing the same with "argued".

As with boxing, athletics, and tennis, the point about debating is that it's a
recognised activity having its own clubs and societies; and is subject to specific rules.
Unlike "arguing" which may amount to little more than people shouting at one another,
waving their arms about, or even throwing things.
Which is why there are no "Arguing Societies" or "Arguing.Clubs".

"Argue" and "debate" are near-synonymous.

No they're not.

Debates are usually pre-arranged. Arguments are not.

Post by JNugent
Many people assume that "argue" always means something ill-willed, bad-tempered and
contumelious. But it doesn't.
I have often been asked to argue a case. It used to be my job.

You argued your case in a pre-arranged "hearing". Not in the course of an
impromptu "argument".

.
bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
Like the inverse American grammatical error, debate someone rather than debate
with someone.

Harry boxed Larry, Harry raced Larry (athletics), Harry played Larry (tennis)
Harry debated Larry
Harry and Larry were direct opponents in a contest
Where "with" is synonymous with "against"
Harry boxed with Larry, Harry raced with Larry, Harry played with Larry, Harry
debated
with Larry.
Both Harry and Larry were members of the same boxing, athletics, or tennis
club or debating society - but never necessarily opposed one another
Where "with" is synonymous with "alongside"
bb

Try doing the same with "argued".

As with boxing, athletics, and tennis, the point about debating is that it's a
recognised activity having its own clubs and societies; and is subject to specific
rules.
Unlike "arguing" which may amount to little more than people shouting at one another,
waving their arms about, or even throwing things.
Which is why there are no "Arguing Societies" or "Arguing.Clubs".

"Argue" and "debate" are near-synonymous.

No they're not.
Debates are usually pre-arranged. Arguments are not.

Debates largely consist of arguments.

[Sent by Copilot; other similar definitions are available in all the
best-known dictionaries]:

QUOTE:
The term “argument” can have several meanings depending on the context:

Disagreement: An exchange of diverging or opposite views, often heated
or angry. For example, “I’ve had an argument with my father.”

Reasoning: A reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea,
action, or theory. For example, “There is a strong argument for
submitting a formal appeal.”

Mathematics: An independent variable associated with a function and
determining its value.

Grammar: Any of the noun phrases in a clause that are related directly
to the verb, typically the subject, direct object, and indirect object.

Literature: A summary of the subject matter of a book
ENDQUOTE

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
Many people assume that "argue" always means something ill-willed, bad-tempered and
contumelious. But it doesn't.
I have often been asked to argue a case. It used to be my job.

You argued your case in a pre-arranged "hearing". Not in the course of an
impromptu "argument".

Thank you for supporting my argument.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
Like the inverse American grammatical error, debate someone rather than debate
with someone.

Harry boxed Larry, Harry raced Larry (athletics), Harry played Larry (tennis)
Harry debated Larry
Harry and Larry were direct opponents in a contest
Where "with" is synonymous with "against"
Harry boxed with Larry, Harry raced with Larry, Harry played with Larry, Harry
debated
with Larry.
Both Harry and Larry were members of the same boxing, athletics, or tennis
club or debating society - but never necessarily opposed one another
Where "with" is synonymous with "alongside"
bb

Try doing the same with "argued".

As with boxing, athletics, and tennis, the point about debating is that it's a
recognised activity having its own clubs and societies; and is subject to specific
rules.
Unlike "arguing" which may amount to little more than people shouting at one another,
waving their arms about, or even throwing things.
Which is why there are no "Arguing Societies" or "Arguing.Clubs".

"Argue" and "debate" are near-synonymous.

No they're not.
Debates are usually pre-arranged. Arguments are not.

Debates largely consist of arguments.

So what ?

What exactly has that got to do with ( I assume ) the Trump-Harris debate ?
And whether its permissable to say that "Trump debated Harris" and not
that "Trump debated with Harris"

I'm saying that it *is* permissable; as its essentially no different from
saying that Trump boxed Harris, or Trump raced Harris, or Trump
played Harris.

So what is your position on that ?

< irrelevant material snipped >


bb

[Spike]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
Like the inverse American grammatical error, debate someone rather than debate
with someone.

Harry boxed Larry, Harry raced Larry (athletics), Harry played Larry (tennis)
Harry debated Larry
Harry and Larry were direct opponents in a contest
Where "with" is synonymous with "against"
Harry boxed with Larry, Harry raced with Larry, Harry played with Larry, Harry
debated
with Larry.
Both Harry and Larry were members of the same boxing, athletics, or tennis
club or debating society - but never necessarily opposed one another
Where "with" is synonymous with "alongside"
bb

Try doing the same with "argued".

As with boxing, athletics, and tennis, the point about debating is that it's a
recognised activity having its own clubs and societies; and is subject to specific
rules.
Unlike "arguing" which may amount to little more than people shouting at one
another,
waving their arms about, or even throwing things.
Which is why there are no "Arguing Societies" or "Arguing.Clubs".

"Argue" and "debate" are near-synonymous.

No they're not.
Debates are usually pre-arranged. Arguments are not.

Debates largely consist of arguments.

So what ?
What exactly has that got to do with ( I assume ) the Trump-Harris debate ?
And whether its permissable to say that "Trump debated Harris" and not
that "Trump debated with Harris"
I'm saying that it *is* permissable; as its essentially no different from
saying that Trump boxed Harris, or Trump raced Harris, or Trump
played Harris.

‘Trump debated Harris’ sounds like Trump debated the subject of Harris, as
Trump might have debated Gaza or the Election or whatever. Using ‘…debated
with…’ makes it clear that a person rather than a subject is involved in
the debate.

Post by billy bookcase
So what is your position on that ?
< irrelevant material snipped >

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
Like the inverse American grammatical error, debate someone rather than debate
with someone.

Harry boxed Larry, Harry raced Larry (athletics), Harry played Larry (tennis)
Harry debated Larry
Harry and Larry were direct opponents in a contest
Where "with" is synonymous with "against"
Harry boxed with Larry, Harry raced with Larry, Harry played with Larry, Harry
debated
with Larry.
Both Harry and Larry were members of the same boxing, athletics, or tennis
club or debating society - but never necessarily opposed one another
Where "with" is synonymous with "alongside"
bb

Try doing the same with "argued".

As with boxing, athletics, and tennis, the point about debating is that it's a
recognised activity having its own clubs and societies; and is subject to specific
rules.
Unlike "arguing" which may amount to little more than people shouting at one
another,
waving their arms about, or even throwing things.
Which is why there are no "Arguing Societies" or "Arguing.Clubs".

"Argue" and "debate" are near-synonymous.

No they're not.
Debates are usually pre-arranged. Arguments are not.

Debates largely consist of arguments.

So what ?
What exactly has that got to do with ( I assume ) the Trump-Harris debate ?
And whether its permissable to say that "Trump debated Harris" and not
that "Trump debated with Harris"
I'm saying that it *is* permissable; as its essentially no different from
saying that Trump boxed Harris, or Trump raced Harris, or Trump
played Harris.

'Trump debated Harris' sounds like Trump debated the subject of Harris, as
Trump might have debated Gaza or the Election or whatever.

Not to North American listeners it doesn't ; for the reasons given.

Using '.debate with.' makes it clear that a person rather than a subject is involved in
the debate.

Using "debate with" could possibly be seen as being equivalent to "debate alongside".

As both being on the same side, in a particuloar debate.

Possibly the OP would have been better advised to have chosen "debated against"
as their alternative.

Except they weren't, and so they didn't.


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter
Like the inverse American grammatical error, debate someone rather than debate
with someone.

Harry boxed Larry, Harry raced Larry (athletics), Harry played Larry (tennis)
Harry debated Larry
Harry and Larry were direct opponents in a contest
Where "with" is synonymous with "against"
Harry boxed with Larry, Harry raced with Larry, Harry played with Larry, Harry
debated with Larry.
Both Harry and Larry were members of the same boxing, athletics, or tennis
club or debating society - but never necessarily opposed one another
Where "with" is synonymous with "alongside"

Try doing the same with "argued".

**********

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
As with boxing, athletics, and tennis, the point about debating is that it's a
recognised activity having its own clubs and societies; and is subject to specific
rules.
Unlike "arguing" which may amount to little more than people shouting at one
another, waving their arms about, or even throwing things.
Which is why there are no "Arguing Societies" or "Arguing.Clubs".

**********

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
"Argue" and "debate" are near-synonymous.

No they're not.

**********

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
Debates are usually pre-arranged. Arguments are not.

**********

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
Debates largely consist of arguments.

So what ?

What do you mean, "So what?"?

Above (spaces between rows of asterisks), you argue that arguments and
debates are not, or cannot, be the same thing. Now you have dropped that.

Post by billy bookcase
What exactly has that got to do with ( I assume ) the Trump-Harris debate ?

Nothing. I am not commenting on that.

Why did you think otherwise?

Post by billy bookcase
And whether its permissable to say that "Trump debated Harris" and not
that "Trump debated with Harris"
I'm saying that it *is* permissable; as its essentially no different from
saying that Trump boxed Harris, or Trump raced Harris, or Trump
played Harris.
So what is your position on that ?

It's an Americanism and regrettably, has infected this side of the ocean
among the trendies who like to ask things like "Can I get a Big Mac and
a strawberry milkshake?" - in Barnsley.

Post by billy bookcase
< irrelevant material snipped >

It's probably the easiest way to proceed, now what you have accepted
that "argue" and "debate" are near-synonyms.

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <***@mail.com> wrote in message news:***@mid.individual.net...

< even more irrelevant material snipped >

Post by JNugent
It's an Americanism and regrettably, has infected this side of the ocean

Oh really ? And do you have any concrete examples of English people
themselves using the word in that way ?

Post by JNugent
It's probably the easiest way to proceed, now what you have accepted that "argue" and
"debate" are near-synonyms.

As "debate" alone also functions as a noun, any such suggestion is quite
clearly ludicrous; as is any suggestion that I myself would subscribe
to such a preposterous notion.


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase
< even more irrelevant material snipped >

Post by JNugent
It's an Americanism and regrettably, has infected this side of the ocean

Oh really ? And do you have any concrete examples of English people
themselves using the word in that way ?

I mentioned one that you have snipped.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
It's probably the easiest way to proceed, now what you have accepted that "argue" and
"debate" are near-synonyms.

As "debate" alone also functions as a noun, any such suggestion is quite
clearly ludicrous; as is any suggestion that I myself would subscribe
to such a preposterous notion.

That's a bit of a word salad, isn't it?

Especially with the hefty snipping you'd done.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
< even more irrelevant material snipped >

Post by JNugent
It's an Americanism and regrettably, has infected this side of the ocean

Oh really ? And do you have any concrete examples of English people
themselves using the word in that way ?

I mentioned one that you have snipped.

You mean this ?

quote:

....among the trendies who like to ask things like "Can I get a Big Mac and
a strawberry milkshake?" - in Barnsley.

:unquote

As I said, you clearly can produce no concrete examples.

And as to why people should get quite so worked up as a result of choosing to
listen to, or watch Americans speaking American on the radio or television,
is quite beyond me, to be honest.

When you come to think of it, it's really no different to being upset because
they drive down then wrong side of the road, as seen in numerous films
is it ?. (Or even very fast and in the wrong direction, as in "Ronin")

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
It's probably the easiest way to proceed, now what you have accepted that "argue" and
"debate" are near-synonyms.

As "debate" alone also functions as a noun, any such suggestion is quite
clearly ludicrous; as is any suggestion that I myself would subscribe
to such a preposterous notion.

That's a bit of a word salad, isn't it?

Is that simply another way of admitting that you're wrong ?

In addition, it presumably hasn't occurred to you that "debates" are necessarily
two sided.

Whereas when "arguing a case" sometimes an argument can speak for itself.

Thus having considered a proposal comprising evidence, relevant documents,
rulings etc. as put forward by one party alone, a tribunal or hearing may well
come to a decision, on that basis alone.

With only one "argument ever having featured.

Although whether Immune Ant, the lad himself, ever made any weighty
pronouncements on that topic also, I'm not altogether sure

Post by JNugent
Especially with the hefty snipping you'd done.

This being of your groundbreaking* Barnsley MacDonalds, field-work studies,
I assume ?


bb

* The first MacDonalds opened in the UK in 1974

[Ian Jackson]

Post by billy bookcase
< even more irrelevant material snipped >

Post by JNugent
It's an Americanism and regrettably, has infected this side of the ocean

Oh really ? And do you have any concrete examples of English people
themselves using the word in that way ?

It's increasing common with radio and TV reporters and news presenters.
Many simply unthinkingly parrot USA news releases.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
It's probably the easiest way to proceed, now what you have accepted that "argue" and
"debate" are near-synonyms.

As "debate" alone also functions as a noun, any such suggestion is quite
clearly ludicrous; as is any suggestion that I myself would subscribe
to such a preposterous notion.

It's obvious that, like many other words, 'debate' can be either a verb
or a noun, but 'argue' is only a verb - and a verb cannot be synonymous
with a verb. The only real difference between the verbs 'argue' and
'debate' is that 'argue' often suggests a greater degree hostility -
although, as Monty Python showed, some people will simply argue for the
sake of it.

[JNugent]

Post by Ian Jackson

Post by billy bookcase
< even more irrelevant material snipped >

Post by JNugent
It's an Americanism and regrettably, has infected this side of the ocean

Oh really ?  And do you have any concrete examples of English people
themselves using the word in that way ?

It's increasing common with radio and TV reporters and news presenters.
Many simply unthinkingly parrot USA news releases.

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
It's probably the easiest way to proceed, now what you have accepted
that "argue" and "debate" are near-synonyms.

As "debate" alone also functions as a noun, any such suggestion is quite
clearly ludicrous; as is any suggestion that I myself would subscribe
to such a preposterous notion.

It's obvious that, like many other words, 'debate' can be either a verb
or a noun, but 'argue' is only a verb - and a verb cannot be synonymous
with a verb. The only real difference between the verbs 'argue' and
'debate' is that 'argue' often suggests a greater degree hostility -
although, as Monty Python showed, some people will simply argue for the
sake of it.

There are plenty of verbs which can be interchanged with each other in
everyday speech.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:11:09 +0100, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
It's obvious that, like many other words, 'debate' can be either a verb
or a noun, but 'argue' is only a verb - and a verb cannot be synonymous
with a verb. The only real difference between the verbs 'argue' and
'debate' is that 'argue' often suggests a greater degree hostility -
although, as Monty Python showed, some people will simply argue for the
sake of it.

All nouns can be verbed and all verbs can be nouned. The main reason why
"argue" hasn't been nouned is that the noun form - "argument" - already
exists, as do a plethora of synonyms for it. Form-shifting generally only
takes place when it can fill a gap.

Mark

[AnthonyL]

On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 20:07:22 +0100, Mark Goodge

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:11:09 +0100, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
It's obvious that, like many other words, 'debate' can be either a verb
or a noun, but 'argue' is only a verb - and a verb cannot be synonymous
with a verb. The only real difference between the verbs 'argue' and
'debate' is that 'argue' often suggests a greater degree hostility -
although, as Monty Python showed, some people will simply argue for the
sake of it.

All nouns can be verbed and all verbs can be nouned. The main reason why
"argue" hasn't been nouned is that the noun form - "argument" - already
exists, as do a plethora of synonyms for it. Form-shifting generally only
takes place when it can fill a gap.

I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

[billy bookcase]

Post by AnthonyL
On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 20:07:22 +0100, Mark Goodge

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:11:09 +0100, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
It's obvious that, like many other words, 'debate' can be either a verb
or a noun, but 'argue' is only a verb - and a verb cannot be synonymous
with a verb. The only real difference between the verbs 'argue' and
'debate' is that 'argue' often suggests a greater degree hostility -
although, as Monty Python showed, some people will simply argue for the
sake of it.

All nouns can be verbed and all verbs can be nouned. The main reason why
"argue" hasn't been nouned is that the noun form - "argument" - already
exists, as do a plethora of synonyms for it. Form-shifting generally only
takes place when it can fill a gap.

I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

UR Bertrand Russell AICMFP


bb

[Alan J. Wylie]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by AnthonyL
I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

UR Bertrand Russell AICMFP

"He barbered a shave"?

[billy bookcase]

Post by Alan J. Wylie

Post by billy bookcase

Post by AnthonyL
I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

UR Bertrand Russell AICMFP

"He barbered a shave"?

It would have been, only thinking about it, that was a genuine
paradox. Whereas nouning nouns is simply an impossibility owing
to the fact that it's only possible to noun verbs.

bb

* Does a barber who shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves
shave himself ?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Alan J. Wylie

Post by billy bookcase

Post by AnthonyL
I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

UR Bertrand Russell AICMFP

"He barbered a shave"?

It would have been, only thinking about it, that was a genuine
paradox. Whereas nouning nouns is simply an impossibility owing
to the fact that it's only possible to noun verbs.
bb
* Does a barber who shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves
shave himself ?

I think you must mean a barber who *only* shaves people who don't shave
themselves.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Alan J. Wylie

Post by billy bookcase

Post by AnthonyL
I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

UR Bertrand Russell AICMFP

"He barbered a shave"?

It would have been, only thinking about it, that was a genuine
paradox. Whereas nouning nouns is simply an impossibility owing
to the fact that it's only possible to noun verbs.
bb
* Does a barber who shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves
shave himself ?

I think you must mean a barber who *only* shaves people who don't shave
themselves.

So who else would he shave ?

He shaves people who don't shave themselves, and who else ?

And doesn't he cut people's hair as well, for that matter ?

I'm just looking for any excuse to introduce sets of penguins,
and sets of things which aren't penguins.


bb

[Roger Hayter]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Alan J. Wylie

Post by billy bookcase

Post by AnthonyL
I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

UR Bertrand Russell AICMFP

"He barbered a shave"?

It would have been, only thinking about it, that was a genuine
paradox. Whereas nouning nouns is simply an impossibility owing
to the fact that it's only possible to noun verbs.
bb
* Does a barber who shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves
shave himself ?

I think you must mean a barber who *only* shaves people who don't shave
themselves.

So who else would he shave ?
He shaves people who don't shave themselves, and who else ?

There is nothing obvious to stop him shaving people who also shaves
themselves, except the desire to create a paradox.

Post by billy bookcase
And doesn't he cut people's hair as well, for that matter ?
I'm just looking for any excuse to introduce sets of penguins,
and sets of things which aren't penguins.
bb

[billy bookcase]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Alan J. Wylie

Post by billy bookcase

Post by AnthonyL
I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

UR Bertrand Russell AICMFP

"He barbered a shave"?

It would have been, only thinking about it, that was a genuine
paradox. Whereas nouning nouns is simply an impossibility owing
to the fact that it's only possible to noun verbs.
bb
* Does a barber who shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves
shave himself ?

I think you must mean a barber who *only* shaves people who don't shave
themselves.

So who else would he shave ?
He shaves people who don't shave themselves, and who else ?

There is nothing obvious to stop him shaving people who also shaves
themselves, except the desire to create a paradox.

But why would people who shave themselves also pay a barber to shave them ?

That simply doesnt make any sense does it ?

While your suggested wording

" I think you must mean a barber who *only* shaves people who don't shave
themselves "

doesn't exclude the possiblity of men with beards who nobody shaves at all

Whereas my suggested wording includes *all* eligbl candidates, i.e excluding
women and children .

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase
And doesn't he cut people's hair as well, for that matter ?
I'm just looking for any excuse to introduce sets of penguins,
and sets of things which aren't penguins.

The set of penguins isn't itself a penguin and so is *not*a member of itself.

The set of things which are not penguins is itself not a pengiuin and so *is* a
member of itself.

And is the set of sets of things which are not members of themselves, a member
of itself ?

If the set of sets of things which are not members of themselves is a member of
itself, then by definition it cannot be member of itself

While if the set of sets of things which are not members of themselves is not a
member of itself, then again it cannot be a member of itself.

And so its impossible to have a set of things which are not members of themslves,
which either are or not members of themselves.

And so its impossible to have a set of things, which are not members of themslves

The Barber Paradox as noted above (and subsequently borrowed by Russell)
is a "simplified version" of this paradox.

Which undermined the basis of set theory, as it was currently understood, up until
its discovery by Russell.

Or something



bb

[Roger Hayter]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Alan J. Wylie

Post by billy bookcase

Post by AnthonyL
I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

UR Bertrand Russell AICMFP

"He barbered a shave"?

It would have been, only thinking about it, that was a genuine
paradox. Whereas nouning nouns is simply an impossibility owing
to the fact that it's only possible to noun verbs.
bb
* Does a barber who shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves
shave himself ?

I think you must mean a barber who *only* shaves people who don't shave
themselves.

So who else would he shave ?
He shaves people who don't shave themselves, and who else ?

There is nothing obvious to stop him shaving people who also shaves
themselves, except the desire to create a paradox.

But why would people who shave themselves also pay a barber to shave them ?
That simply doesnt make any sense does it ?

They might get a professional shave on special occasions - this doesn't seem
far-fetched to me at all.

Post by billy bookcase
While your suggested wording
" I think you must mean a barber who *only* shaves people who don't shave
themselves "
doesn't exclude the possiblity of men with beards who nobody shaves at all

It doesn't affect them. Your formulation of all people who don't shave
themselves fails on that, though.

Post by billy bookcase
Whereas my suggested wording includes *all* eligbl candidates, i.e excluding
women and children .

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase
And doesn't he cut people's hair as well, for that matter ?
I'm just looking for any excuse to introduce sets of penguins,
and sets of things which aren't penguins.

The set of penguins isn't itself a penguin and so is *not*a member of itself.
The set of things which are not penguins is itself not a pengiuin and so *is* a
member of itself.
And is the set of sets of things which are not members of themselves, a member
of itself ?
If the set of sets of things which are not members of themselves is a member of
itself, then by definition it cannot be member of itself
While if the set of sets of things which are not members of themselves is not a
member of itself, then again it cannot be a member of itself.
And so its impossible to have a set of things which are not members of themslves,
which either are or not members of themselves.
And so its impossible to have a set of things, which are not members of themslves
The Barber Paradox as noted above (and subsequently borrowed by Russell)
is a "simplified version" of this paradox.
Which undermined the basis of set theory, as it was currently understood, up until
its discovery by Russell.
Or something

That's good to know.

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Alan J. Wylie

Post by billy bookcase

Post by AnthonyL
I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

UR Bertrand Russell AICMFP

"He barbered a shave"?

It would have been, only thinking about it, that was a genuine
paradox. Whereas nouning nouns is simply an impossibility owing
to the fact that it's only possible to noun verbs.
bb
* Does a barber who shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves
shave himself ?

I think you must mean a barber who *only* shaves people who don't shave
themselves.

So who else would he shave ?
He shaves people who don't shave themselves, and who else ?
And doesn't he cut people's hair as well, for that matter ?
I'm just looking for any excuse to introduce sets of penguins,
and sets of things which aren't penguins.

You have reminded me of a sign in the rear window of a carpet showroom
in St Helens (forty years ago, but might still be there):

"Open to the general public only".

[billy bookcase]

You have reminded me of a sign in the rear window of a carpet showroom in St Helens
"Open to the general public only".

They sound like the kind of outfit that ran their own adverts in the local cinemas

That got me thinking about some character, maybe from the midlands or the
north in the 80's or 90's who used to do his own naff commercials on national
(London anyway) TV. He may also have his own naff slogan as well. He wasn't
selling a branded consumer product (As with Barry Scott and Cillit Bang) but
maybe furniture or carpets. He may have had outlets on trading estates.


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

You have reminded me of a sign in the rear window of a carpet showroom in St Helens
"Open to the general public only".

They sound like the kind of outfit that ran their own adverts in the local cinemas
That got me thinking about some character, maybe from the midlands or the
north in the 80's or 90's who used to do his own naff commercials on national
(London anyway) TV. He may also have his own naff slogan as well. He wasn't
selling a branded consumer product (As with Barry Scott and Cillit Bang) but
maybe furniture or carpets. He may have had outlets on trading estates.

In the very early days of Channel Four, when the relevant ITV companies
couldn't always fill the advertising slots they were selling on behalf
of C4, there was a London off-licence tycoon by the name of "Barrett"
who appeared in vision on his own C4 ads singing an unaccompanied jingle:

"Barrett's! Barrett's!
Come to Barrett's!
Barrett's Liquor Bars!"

[Mark Goodge]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Alan J. Wylie

Post by billy bookcase

Post by AnthonyL
I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

UR Bertrand Russell AICMFP

"He barbered a shave"?

It would have been, only thinking about it, that was a genuine
paradox. Whereas nouning nouns is simply an impossibility owing
to the fact that it's only possible to noun verbs.

Not so; you can also noun adjectives and adverbs.

A classic example of how words can shift between adjective, noun and verb is
"microwave". The word itself was originally formed by combining an adjective
(micro) and a noun (wave) into "micro waves", which got shortened into a
plural noun, "microwaves", which in turn became an adjective, as in
"microwave radiation", and then got shortened again back to a singular noun,
"microwave" (as opposed to radio and infrared, which are either side of it
on the electromagnetic spectrum). It then became an adjective again when
applied to the cooking device, a "microwave oven", and yet again mutated
into a noun, "microwave" (as in "heat in the microwave for five minutes").
Although now the noun means something completely different to what it means
when used by physicists and telecommunications engineers. And then it got
verbed, so your cooking instructions now read "microwave for five minutes".

So, over the course of time, the same word has been an adjective, then a
noun, then an adjective again, then a noun again but with a different
meaning, and then a verb. Think of that the next time you heat up your Pot
Noodle.

Mark

[Roger Hayter]

On 5 Oct 2024 at 21:40:06 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Alan J. Wylie

Post by billy bookcase

Post by AnthonyL
I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

UR Bertrand Russell AICMFP

"He barbered a shave"?

It would have been, only thinking about it, that was a genuine
paradox. Whereas nouning nouns is simply an impossibility owing
to the fact that it's only possible to noun verbs.

Not so; you can also noun adjectives and adverbs.
A classic example of how words can shift between adjective, noun and verb is
"microwave". The word itself was originally formed by combining an adjective
(micro) and a noun (wave) into "micro waves", which got shortened into a
plural noun, "microwaves", which in turn became an adjective, as in
"microwave radiation", and then got shortened again back to a singular noun,
"microwave" (as opposed to radio and infrared, which are either side of it
on the electromagnetic spectrum). It then became an adjective again when
applied to the cooking device, a "microwave oven", and yet again mutated
into a noun, "microwave" (as in "heat in the microwave for five minutes").
Although now the noun means something completely different to what it means
when used by physicists and telecommunications engineers. And then it got
verbed, so your cooking instructions now read "microwave for five minutes".
So, over the course of time, the same word has been an adjective, then a
noun, then an adjective again, then a noun again but with a different
meaning, and then a verb. Think of that the next time you heat up your Pot
Noodle.
Mark

Have you noticed that "electricity" is now too difficult a word for the
peasantry and has become the noun "electric" in advertising and official
communications?

[AnthonyL]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by AnthonyL
On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 20:07:22 +0100, Mark Goodge

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:11:09 +0100, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
It's obvious that, like many other words, 'debate' can be either a verb
or a noun, but 'argue' is only a verb - and a verb cannot be synonymous
with a verb. The only real difference between the verbs 'argue' and
'debate' is that 'argue' often suggests a greater degree hostility -
although, as Monty Python showed, some people will simply argue for the
sake of it.

All nouns can be verbed and all verbs can be nouned. The main reason why
"argue" hasn't been nouned is that the noun form - "argument" - already
exists, as do a plethora of synonyms for it. Form-shifting generally only
takes place when it can fill a gap.

I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

UR Bertrand Russell AICMFP

It's waiting for you when you arrive!

[JNugent]

Post by AnthonyL
On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 20:07:22 +0100, Mark Goodge

Post by Mark Goodge
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 17:11:09 +0100, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
It's obvious that, like many other words, 'debate' can be either a verb
or a noun, but 'argue' is only a verb - and a verb cannot be synonymous
with a verb. The only real difference between the verbs 'argue' and
'debate' is that 'argue' often suggests a greater degree hostility -
although, as Monty Python showed, some people will simply argue for the
sake of it.

All nouns can be verbed and all verbs can be nouned. The main reason why
"argue" hasn't been nouned is that the noun form - "argument" - already
exists, as do a plethora of synonyms for it. Form-shifting generally only
takes place when it can fill a gap.

I'm struggling to verb noun. "He nouned a noun" :?

I'm still struggling with "a verb cannot be synonymous with a verb".

Kill / murder / slaughter / slay / dispatch / assassinate

OK, not all of them have exactly the same dictionary definition, but
they used as synonyms, especially in the press when a journo or
sub-editor wants a snappy word not already used a line or two previously.

[JNugent]

Post by Davey
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 08:23:12 +0100

Post by Les. Hayward

Post by Spike

Post by The Todal
This documentary was broadcast recently on Channel 4, and was
about the young British sailors who witnessed the H bomb tests
(Operation Grapple) on Christmas Island in 1957-8. Also those who
witnessed tests in Australia in 1952-7.
The claim is that they have had long term health problems -
cancers of various types - and that many of their children were
born deformed. And that they are denied compensation by a callous
UK government.
I found it very disappointing, a missed opportunity to set out a
persuasive case for compensation. One irritation was the presenter
who pronounced it "nucular" instead of "nuclear". Why do people,
some of them important politicians, do that?

On the pronunciation aspect of nuclear vs. newkewleer, I find that
newsreaders and sports commentators pronunciation of ‘Wemberly’ and
‘smuggerlers’ particularly irritating.
And the BBC seem to have chosen unilaterally to pronounce Netanyahu
as Ne’anyahu.

The one which always annoys me is the 'meet with' instead of just 'meet'!

An imported Americanism.

I'm not so certain.

Haven't people met with unfortunate accidents in British English prose
over the years?

But what about "meet up with"?

[billy bookcase]

Post by Les. Hayward
The one which always annoys me is the 'meet with' instead of just 'meet'!

To "meet with" someone implies that those involved are going to hold or attend
a "meeting"; maybe just consisting of the two of them, where discussions of some
kind may take place. As usually happens at "meetings"

To meet someone may apply to meeting them by accident or possibly off of a trains
etc.; but not for the specific purpose of holding a "meeting".


bb

[Harry Bloomfield Esq]

Post by Spike
And the BBC seem to have chosen unilaterally to pronounce Netanyahu as
Ne’anyahu.

Last evening, the local BBC were reporting that a local power station,
had added - 100 megawatts of battery storage. The 100 megawatts of
storage was repeated by the reporter at least four times during the
piece. The report came, overlooking the power station - yet no one on
site corrected him, with correct term - megawatt hours.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq

Post by Spike
And the BBC seem to have chosen unilaterally to pronounce Netanyahu as
Ne’anyahu.

Last evening, the local BBC were reporting that a local power station,
had added - 100 megawatts of battery storage. The 100 megawatts of
storage was repeated by the reporter at least four times during the
piece. The report came, overlooking the power station - yet no one on
site corrected him, with correct term - megawatt hours.

But "megawatts" isn't wrong. An energy storage system is going to have
two capacity figures involved - one for how much energy it can store in
total, which can be in megawatt-hours as you say, and another for how
fast it can deliver that energy, which would be in megawatts.

Both these figures are important, and the "how fast" one appears to be
the one that is considered more important - take for example this press
release whose headline calls it a "150MW battery storage project" and
only later describes it as "150MW/300MWh":

https://www.sserenewables.com/news-and-views/2023/08/sse-renewables-breaks-ground-with-its-150mw-battery-storage-project-at-ferrybridge/

[Spike]

Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq

Post by Spike
And the BBC seem to have chosen unilaterally to pronounce Netanyahu as
Ne’anyahu.

…but they can manage the glottal stop in Hezb’ollah.

Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq
Last evening, the local BBC were reporting that a local power station,
had added - 100 megawatts of battery storage. The 100 megawatts of
storage was repeated by the reporter at least four times during the
piece. The report came, overlooking the power station - yet no one on
site corrected him, with correct term - megawatt hours.

C’est la vie, say the old folks, it goes to show you never can tell…

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq

Post by Spike
And the BBC seem to have chosen unilaterally to pronounce Netanyahu as
Ne’anyahu.

Last evening, the local BBC were reporting that a local power station,
had added - 100 megawatts of battery storage. The 100 megawatts of
storage was repeated by the reporter at least four times during the
piece. The report came, overlooking the power station - yet no one on
site corrected him, with correct term - megawatt hours.

A recent online BBC report about two climbers who spent 3 days at 20,000 feet
on a mountain without their warm clothes and camping equipment, and had one
sleeping bag between them, said were beginning to suffer from
hyperthermia(sic). Is this ChatGPT or human morons?

[billy bookcase]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Harry Bloomfield Esq

Post by Spike
And the BBC seem to have chosen unilaterally to pronounce Netanyahu as
Ne'anyahu.

Last evening, the local BBC were reporting that a local power station,
had added - 100 megawatts of battery storage. The 100 megawatts of
storage was repeated by the reporter at least four times during the
piece. The report came, overlooking the power station - yet no one on
site corrected him, with correct term - megawatt hours.

A recent online BBC report about two climbers who spent 3 days at 20,000 feet
on a mountain without their warm clothes and camping equipment, and had one
sleeping bag between them, said were beginning to suffer from
hyperthermia(sic). Is this ChatGPT or human morons?

Or maybe merrons ?

bb

[billy bookcase]

CORRECTION: For "Immune Ant" please read Immanuel Kant

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
< even more irrelevant material snipped >

Post by JNugent
It's an Americanism and regrettably, has infected this side of the ocean

Oh really ? And do you have any concrete examples of English people
themselves using the word in that way ?

I mentioned one that you have snipped.

You mean this ?
....among the trendies who like to ask things like "Can I get a Big Mac and
a strawberry milkshake?" - in Barnsley.
:unquote
As I said, you clearly can produce no concrete examples.
And as to why people should get quite so worked up as a result of choosing to
listen to, or watch Americans speaking American on the radio or television,
is quite beyond me, to be honest.
When you come to think of it, it's really no different to being upset because
they drive down then wrong side of the road, as seen in numerous films
is it ?. (Or even very fast and in the wrong direction, as in "Ronin")

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
It's probably the easiest way to proceed, now what you have accepted that "argue"
and
"debate" are near-synonyms.

As "debate" alone also functions as a noun, any such suggestion is quite
clearly ludicrous; as is any suggestion that I myself would subscribe
to such a preposterous notion.

That's a bit of a word salad, isn't it?

Is that simply another way of admitting that you're wrong ?
In addition, it presumably hasn't occurred to you that "debates" are necessarily
two sided.
Whereas when "arguing a case" sometimes an argument can speak for itself.
Thus having considered a proposal comprising evidence, relevant documents,
rulings etc. as put forward by one party alone, a tribunal or hearing may well
come to a decision, on that basis alone.
With only one "argument ever having featured.
Although whether Immune Ant, the lad himself, ever made any weighty
pronouncements on that topic also, I'm not altogether sure

Post by JNugent
Especially with the hefty snipping you'd done.

This being of your groundbreaking* Barnsley MacDonalds, field-work studies,
I assume ?
bb
* The first MacDonalds opened in the UK in 1974