Discussion:
Microsoft Rewards?
(too old to reply)
cameo
2018-06-25 23:42:16 UTC
Permalink
I keep getting this email from
***@email.microsoftrewards.com, but the email does not
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds like
some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any of you got
it, too?
Wolf K
2018-06-25 23:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by cameo
I keep getting this email from
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds like
some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any of you got
it, too?
MS Rewards? ??On the face of it, I'd say, yeah, it's a scam. I can't
imagine MS running a rewards program.
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
What you choose to do with your body will, inevitably, have
psychological consequences.
Big Al
2018-06-26 02:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
Post by cameo
I keep getting this email from
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds
like some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any of
you got it, too?
MS Rewards? ??On the face of it, I'd say, yeah, it's a scam. I can't
imagine MS running a rewards program.
They do. If you log into MS with a hotmail account (at least I do), on
Bing.com, you get a rewards icon with the points total beside your
avatar in top right. I have 33,000+ points.

Now I'm not using any of them or if I have I've received nothing from
the usage.
Paul
2018-06-26 02:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Al
Post by Wolf K
Post by cameo
I keep getting this email from
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds
like some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any of
you got it, too?
MS Rewards? ??On the face of it, I'd say, yeah, it's a scam. I can't
imagine MS running a rewards program.
They do. If you log into MS with a hotmail account (at least I do), on
Bing.com, you get a rewards icon with the points total beside your
avatar in top right. I have 33,000+ points.
Now I'm not using any of them or if I have I've received nothing from
the usage.
33000 points ? <checks charts>

That entitles you to one order of Cotton Candy.
Come to the Seattle fairground to pick it up.

Loading Image...

Paul
Paul
2018-06-26 02:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Big Al
Post by Wolf K
Post by cameo
I keep getting this email from
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds
like some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any
of you got it, too?
MS Rewards? ??On the face of it, I'd say, yeah, it's a scam. I can't
imagine MS running a rewards program.
They do. If you log into MS with a hotmail account (at least I do),
on Bing.com, you get a rewards icon with the points total beside your
avatar in top right. I have 33,000+ points.
Now I'm not using any of them or if I have I've received nothing from
the usage.
33000 points ? <checks charts>
That entitles you to one order of Cotton Candy.
Come to the Seattle fairground to pick it up.
http://www.restaurant-hospitality.com/sites/restaurant-hospitality.com/files/styles/article_featured_standard/public/ThinkstockPhotos-503386182.jpg
Paul
Actually, there's a suggestion here.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-ca/help/4028465/microsoft-account-how-microsoft-rewards-points-work#!en-ca%2Fhelp%2F4028465%2Fmicrosoft-account-how-microsoft-rewards-points-work

"Microsoft Rewards points have no cash value.

You can typically redeem 5,000 Microsoft Rewards points
for about $5 of value on the Microsoft Rewards redeem page.
"

So you have around $30 worth.

If you converted that to Air Miles, it would fly
you across the street (about 66 feet).

I think the Cotton Candy is a good deal, all things
considered.

Paul
Big Al
2018-06-26 11:26:13 UTC
Permalink
I think the Cotton Candy is a good deal, all things
considered.
Me too!
VanguardLH
2018-06-26 05:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Al
Post by Wolf K
Post by cameo
I keep getting this email from
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds
like some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any of
you got it, too?
MS Rewards? ??On the face of it, I'd say, yeah, it's a scam. I can't
imagine MS running a rewards program.
They do. If you log into MS with a hotmail account (at least I do), on
Bing.com, you get a rewards icon with the points total beside your
avatar in top right. I have 33,000+ points.
Now I'm not using any of them or if I have I've received nothing from
the usage.
I logged into Hotmail (also have an Outlook.com account). Went to
bing.com. Click on the Rewards icon. A window popped up telling me
about Microsoft rewards but requires that I join. So just having a
Microsoft e-mail account does not enlist you into their rewards program.

Have you ever bought anything from Microsoft's store?
Big Al
2018-06-26 11:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by VanguardLH
Post by Big Al
Post by Wolf K
Post by cameo
I keep getting this email from
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds
like some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any of
you got it, too?
MS Rewards? ??On the face of it, I'd say, yeah, it's a scam. I can't
imagine MS running a rewards program.
They do. If you log into MS with a hotmail account (at least I do), on
Bing.com, you get a rewards icon with the points total beside your
avatar in top right. I have 33,000+ points.
Now I'm not using any of them or if I have I've received nothing from
the usage.
I logged into Hotmail (also have an Outlook.com account). Went to
bing.com. Click on the Rewards icon. A window popped up telling me
about Microsoft rewards but requires that I join. So just having a
Microsoft e-mail account does not enlist you into their rewards program.
Have you ever bought anything from Microsoft's store?
Never!

Odd that a ***@hotmail.com account doesn't show the program. Maybe I
joined (it's been so long ago), but that's all I do.
Mayayana
2018-06-26 00:22:13 UTC
Permalink
"cameo" <***@unreal.invalid> wrote

|I keep getting this email from
| ***@email.microsoftrewards.com,

With something like that you can check whois:

https://www.whois.com/whois/microsoftrewards.com


That does seem to be Microsoft, assuming you're
actually getting it from microsoftrewards.com and
any link really does go to microsoftrewards.com.
It's a good idea to check the source code to be sure.

Personally I wouldn't click on any "hot area" anyway.
That will usually involve a web bug or rigged URL to
confirm for them that you read the email.

I assume they're not offering anything good.
It appears that it's basically what might be called
"legitimate phishing".

https://rewards.microsoft.com/

Maybe you accidentally signed up. Or maybe
you've given your email address to MS in some
venue and they're spamming you.

They invite you to use their products and give
them lots of personal information. In exchange you
get vaguely defined points that you may be able to
redem for "gift cards" or sweepstakes entries or
discounts on Microsoft Store apps. So, let them
spy on you and you can be entered in a contest.

This reminds me of years ago when I had a Citibank
credit card and got CitiDollars for using it. I amassed
something like $6,000 CitiDollars. But I could only redeem
them by buying overpriced stuff: Get this $400 TV for
$250 and 300 CitiDollars. The problem was that I could
buy the TV in a store for about $250. So the whole
thing was actually just a scam.
But in a way the CitiDollars were better than
Microsoft rewards: At least I didn't have to give them
personal marketing info in order to get nothing. :)
Mandy Liefbowitz
2018-06-26 00:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by cameo
I keep getting this email from
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds like
some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any of you got
it, too?
https://www.startpage.com/do/search?cat=web&language=english&query=microsoft+rewards&pl=ff


It seems to be a legitimate scheme, though those particular emails
may be bogus and spammy.
If the scheme interests you, you may be able find it through
Microsoft's homepages.

Mand.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-06-26 00:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by cameo
I keep getting this email from
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds
like some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any of
you got it, too?
From what others have said, sounds like it's legitimate but worthless.

The addressing is obviously automated, and derives from somewhere you
have filled in your name using only your initials. I don't like being
addressed by my first name by someone (especially automated software) I
don't know, so nearly always fill in anything that needs a name with
just my initials as below, and get a lot of "Dear J" as a result (or
sometimes "Dear Jp"). [I haven't received any from microsoftrewards
AFAICR.]
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer
practice to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as
Microsoft but with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I would
have assumed it was a scam anyway.

(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Eastenders" is like being punched repeatedly in the face for half an hour. -
Stephen Mangan, in Radio Times 5-11 May 2012
Mark Lloyd
2018-06-26 01:12:20 UTC
Permalink
On 06/25/2018 07:52 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[snip]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The addressing is obviously automated, and derives from somewhere you
have filled in your name using only your initials. I don't like being
addressed by my first name by someone (especially automated software) I
don't know, so nearly always fill in anything that needs a name with
just my initials as below, and get a lot of "Dear J" as a result (or
sometimes "Dear Jp"). [I haven't received any from microsoftrewards
AFAICR.]
I remember from before the web, when my father would use "H" as a first
name, for these things. It was actually the first letter of the dog's
name, and the dog could use some new chew toys.

Also (OT)

One night I was listening to the PBS radio station, and someone I knew
called in a donation for "S Lloyd". The announcer thought that was his
son, but I knew it was the cat.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And
I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. "
VanguardLH
2018-06-26 01:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by cameo
I keep getting this email from
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds
like some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any of
you got it, too?
From what others have said, sounds like it's legitimate but worthless.
The addressing is obviously automated, and derives from somewhere you
have filled in your name using only your initials. I don't like being
addressed by my first name by someone (especially automated software) I
don't know, so nearly always fill in anything that needs a name with
just my initials as below, and get a lot of "Dear J" as a result (or
sometimes "Dear Jp"). [I haven't received any from microsoftrewards
AFAICR.]
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer
practice to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as
Microsoft but with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I would
have assumed it was a scam anyway.
(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)
The From header is worthless for validating who was the sender of an
e-mail. The sender's e-mail client defines the value of the From
header, not the sender's mail server. I can put anything I want in the
From header. I could send e-mails that look like they came from cameo,
you, or anyone else.

You need to look at the Received headers to see from where the e-mail
originated. Received headers are prepended in the order they pass
through mail servers. That is, the first mail server will be the last
one listed in the source of an e-mail and the last mail server will be
at the top of the headers section. Some Received headers are shown for
internal routing within an e-mail provider so they don't comply with the
by-clause in one Received header having to match the from-clause in the
next Received header. That doesn't identify the sender at that domain
but will show if, say, a Microsoft e-mail originated from a Microsoft
mail server. However, scammers can spoof a Received header by inserting
their own. When they do, it will be the first Received header after the
legitimate ones. They're hoping you cannot identify fake Received
headers, will trace from a legit one into theirs, and think their e-mail
originated from where they said it did. If it is not an internal
routing shown in Received headers, the server specified in from-clause
from a later Received header should point at the server specified in the
by-clause in the just prior Received header. Tracing through Received
headers is easy but full of gotchas.

Some mail servers will add a Sender header. The client doesn't add
this. The sending mail server adds that header. If the client adds it,
the server will ignore it to add its own Sender header. That can
identify who was the sender at the domain which should match the
non-internal (boundary) sending mail server specified in the first
Received header.

Some e-mails will have SPF or DomainKeys headers that also help identify
from where an e-mail originated (the sending mail server, not the
account that used that outgoing mail server).

Some companies contract others to send their bulk mailings. The problem
is the e-mail will show it comes from the bulk mailing service, not from
the domain purporting to have sent the e-mail. Comcast does this: they
employ someone else (don't remember who) to send bulk mailings on
Comcast's behalf. The result is the Received headers show the e-mail
did not originate from Comcast. The From header is faked to show
Comcast as the sender. The hyperlinks inside the message body often
will point to somewhere other than a Comcast registered domain. The
cure is to grant authorizing for the bulk mailing service to use
Comcast's own SMTP servers to spew out the bulk mails; however, that
means letting someone else pass traffic through your SMTP server and
usually the point of contracting a bulk mailing service is NOT to
impinge that traffic volume upon your mail servers. There are other
solutions, like letting the bulk mailer use a domain registered for the
purported sender, like letting them use their own SMTP server using
something like rewardscomcast.net. While it will look like the e-mail
originated from a different domain than Comcast in the Received headers,
a whois on the alternate domain would show that Comcast is the
registrant.

Since there is a Microsoft Rewards program and since the hostname of
"email" is at the microsoft.com domain where Microsoft is the registrant
for that domain, it is very plausible the OP got a legit e-mail from
Microsoft. However, the OP showed us what he saw and it is likely he
received an HTML-formatted e-mail. Rare nowadays are senders that send
in plain text format. The HTML <A> tag will have a comment section
where whomever composed the HTML-formatted e-mail can specify whatever
they want as the comment, which could look like a URL. The href
attribute of the <A> tag specifies where the hyperlink actually points,
and that can differ from the comment for the <A> tag. For example:

<A href="we-cheat-em-and-how.ru/rogueware/infection-pretense.html">
***@email.microsoft.com</A>

has the comment (between the <A> and </A> delimiter tags) pretend the
user would be going to Microsoft when, in fact, the href will have them
visit some rogueware site that claims the visitor is infected and offer
to download and install software to fix the problem (which is actually
malware, like ransomware).

Without seeing the source of the HTML-formatted e-mail (i.e., the HTML
code), there is no way we can tell to where a hyperlink actually points.
We're only told where the OP *thinks* the hyperlink points based on the
comment for the <A> tag. The OP wants us to diagnose an e-mail for
which no exhibit has been provided for us to diagnose. Saying it came
from somewhere based on limited expertise in e-mail headers and HTML
code doesn't really give real evidence of where it actually came from or
to where the hyperlinks point.
SC Tom
2018-06-26 13:12:40 UTC
Permalink
snip<
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer practice
to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as Microsoft but
with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I would have assumed it
was a scam anyway.
(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)
That's because of the sentence structure :-) It would have been acceptable
to say ". . . practice to use hostnames comprised of a well-known name such
as . . .".

Although it may have to have a choice of more than one name to use
"comprised of", such as ". . . Microsoft or Apple, but . . .", or ". . .
practice to use hostnames comprised of well-known names such as Microsoft or
Apple, but . . .". Not sure any more; been way too long since I had English
Grammar, LOL!!
--
SC Tom
Wolf K
2018-06-26 13:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by SC Tom
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
snip<
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer
practice to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as
Microsoft but with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I would
have assumed it was a scam anyway.
(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)
That's because of the sentence structure :-) It would have been
acceptable to say ". . . practice to use hostnames comprised of a
well-known name such as . . .".
Avoid the passive voice.
Post by SC Tom
Although it may have to have a choice of more than one name to use
"comprised of", such as ". . . Microsoft or Apple, but . . .", or ". . .
practice to use hostnames comprised of well-known names such as
Microsoft or Apple, but . . .". Not sure any more; been way too long
since I had English Grammar, LOL!!
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
What you choose to do with your body will, inevitably, have
psychological consequences.
Ed Cryer
2018-06-26 14:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
Post by SC Tom
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
snip<
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer
practice to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as
Microsoft but with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I
would have assumed it was a scam anyway.
(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)
That's because of the sentence structure :-) It would have been
acceptable to say ". . . practice to use hostnames comprised of a
well-known name such as . . .".
Avoid the passive voice.
Post by SC Tom
Although it may have to have a choice of more than one name to use
"comprised of", such as ". . . Microsoft or Apple, but . . .", or ". .
. practice to use hostnames comprised of well-known names such as
Microsoft or Apple, but . . .". Not sure any more; been way too long
since I had English Grammar, LOL!!
In the UK here "comprised of" is fine; it's synonymous with "consists of".

BTW, we differentiate between "practice" and "practise". The former is a
noun, the latter a verb.

Ed
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-06-26 15:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Wolf K
Post by SC Tom
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
snip<
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer
practice to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as
Microsoft but with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I
would have assumed it was a scam anyway.
(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)
That's because of the sentence structure :-) It would have been
acceptable to say ". . . practice to use hostnames comprised of a
well-known name such as . . .".
Avoid the passive voice.
Post by SC Tom
Although it may have to have a choice of more than one name to use
"comprised of", such as ". . . Microsoft or Apple, but . . .", or ".
. . practice to use hostnames comprised of well-known names such as
Microsoft or Apple, but . . .". Not sure any more; been way too long
since I had English Grammar, LOL!!
In the UK here "comprised of" is fine; it's synonymous with "consists of".
I'm in UK, and NO IT ISN'T! Well, I suppose it is with language change -
and I suspect (what I think of as) the wrong form - i. e. with "of" -
may even be commoner than the correct form (i. e. without), nowadays. To
me, "comprise" and "comprises" should _never_ be followed by "of". If
you feel an overwhelming urge to use "of", then use "consist(s)";
"consists of" _is_ synonymous with "comprises" (_without_ "of").

Think of "comprise/comprises/comprised" as similar to "contain(s)". You
wouldn't (yet!) say "contains of", would you?
Post by Ed Cryer
BTW, we differentiate between "practice" and "practise". The former is
a noun, the latter a verb.
Ed
I (and SC Tom quoting me) _was_ using practice as a noun: "it's a common
scanner practice to ...". Note the "a", which goes with "practice". (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You cannot simply assume someone is honest just because they are not an MP.
Frank Slootweg
2018-06-26 15:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Wolf K
Post by SC Tom
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
snip<
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer
practice to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as
Microsoft but with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I
would have assumed it was a scam anyway.
(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)
That's because of the sentence structure :-) It would have been
acceptable to say ". . . practice to use hostnames comprised of a
well-known name such as . . .".
Avoid the passive voice.
Post by SC Tom
Although it may have to have a choice of more than one name to use
"comprised of", such as ". . . Microsoft or Apple, but . . .", or ".
. . practice to use hostnames comprised of well-known names such as
Microsoft or Apple, but . . .". Not sure any more; been way too long
since I had English Grammar, LOL!!
In the UK here "comprised of" is fine; it's synonymous with "consists of".
I'm in UK, and NO IT ISN'T! Well, I suppose it is with language change -
and I suspect (what I think of as) the wrong form - i. e. with "of" -
may even be commoner than the correct form (i. e. without), nowadays. To
me, "comprise" and "comprises" should _never_ be followed by "of". If
you feel an overwhelming urge to use "of", then use "consist(s)";
"consists of" _is_ synonymous with "comprises" (_without_ "of").
Well, '_never_' is a bit strong, but indeed Collins English Dictionary
(i.e. British/UK English) says:

"The use of of after comprise should be avoided: the library comprises
(not comprises of) 500 000 books and manuscripts"

And indeed Random House Dictionary (i.e. US English) is somewhat more
lenient:

"Comprise has had an interesting history of sense development. In
addition to its original senses, dating from the 15th century, to
include and to consist of ( The United States of America comprises 50
states ), comprise has had since the late 18th century the meaning to
form or constitute ( Fifty states comprise the United States of
America). Since the late 19th century it has also been used in passive
constructions with a sense synonymous with that of one of its original
meanings to consist of, be composed of: The United States of America is
comprised of 50 states. These later uses are often criticized, but they
occur with increasing frequency even in formal speech and writing."

Both from:

<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/comprise?s=t>
--
Frank Slootweg, A Dutchie interested in the English language.
Ed Cryer
2018-06-26 15:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Wolf K
Post by SC Tom
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
snip<
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer
practice to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as
Microsoft but with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I
would have assumed it was a scam anyway.
(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)
That's because of the sentence structure :-) It would have been
acceptable to say ". . . practice to use hostnames comprised of a
well-known name such as . . .".
Avoid the passive voice.
Post by SC Tom
Although it may have to have a choice of more than one name to use
"comprised of", such as ". . . Microsoft or Apple, but . . .", or ".
. . practice to use hostnames comprised of well-known names such as
Microsoft or Apple, but . . .". Not sure any more; been way too long
since I had English Grammar, LOL!!
In the UK here "comprised of" is fine; it's synonymous with "consists of".
I'm in UK, and NO IT ISN'T! Well, I suppose it is with language change -
and I suspect (what I think of as) the wrong form - i. e. with "of" -
may even be commoner than the correct form (i. e. without), nowadays. To
me, "comprise" and "comprises" should _never_ be followed by "of". If
you feel an overwhelming urge to use "of", then use "consist(s)";
"consists of" _is_ synonymous with "comprises" (_without_ "of").
Well, '_never_' is a bit strong, but indeed Collins English Dictionary
"The use of of after comprise should be avoided: the library comprises
(not comprises of) 500 000 books and manuscripts"
And indeed Random House Dictionary (i.e. US English) is somewhat more
"Comprise has had an interesting history of sense development. In
addition to its original senses, dating from the 15th century, to
include and to consist of ( The United States of America comprises 50
states ), comprise has had since the late 18th century the meaning to
form or constitute ( Fifty states comprise the United States of
America). Since the late 19th century it has also been used in passive
constructions with a sense synonymous with that of one of its original
meanings to consist of, be composed of: The United States of America is
comprised of 50 states. These later uses are often criticized, but they
occur with increasing frequency even in formal speech and writing."
<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/comprise?s=t>
https://goo.gl/T2vWDj
About 1,010,000,000 results (0.58 seconds)

From the first entry, Wikipedia;

"Comprised of is an expression in English: X "is comprised of" Y means
that X is composed or made up of Y. While its use is common in writing
and speech, it has been disparaged by some language professionals and
style guides as an inappropriate substitution for comprises. The Oxford
English Dictionary regards the construction "comprised of" as
incorrect,[1] while Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and Collins
English Dictionary do not regard it as such, mentioning "comprised of"
among the examples.[2][3]"

My addition.
Grammatically "comprise" is an active verb, and transitive. X comprises
Y & Z. Ergo it can be turned into a passive voice; Y & Z are comprised
by X. I suppose that the "of" has replaced the "by" in the same way that
it has in "composed of" and "made up of".

Ed
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-06-27 00:22:31 UTC
Permalink
In message <pgtn8v$hit$***@dont-email.me>, Ed Cryer
<***@somewhere.in.the.uk> writes:
[]
[]
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)
[]
Post by Ed Cryer
https://goo.gl/T2vWDj
About 1,010,000,000 results (0.58 seconds)
I suppose it would be difficult to google occurrences _without_ the "of"
(and I fear that even if you did figure out a way, they'd be in the
minority now).
Post by Ed Cryer
From the first entry, Wikipedia;
"Comprised of is an expression in English: X "is comprised of" Y means
that X is composed or made up of Y. While its use is common in writing
and speech, it has been disparaged by some language professionals and
style guides as an inappropriate substitution for comprises. The Oxford
Exactly. "Comprises" = "Consists of"; therefore
"comprises of" = "consists of of".
Post by Ed Cryer
English Dictionary regards the construction "comprised of" as
incorrect,[1] while Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and Collins
English Dictionary do not regard it as such, mentioning "comprised of"
among the examples.[2][3]"
I'm surprised: my brother is Associate Editor on the OED, and on the
whole the OED does not express opinions on what is "correct" or not (in
common with most dictionaries, and contrary to what most people think is
the case); it just _records_ usage. (There _are_ "prescriptive"
dictionaries, mainly aimed at those learning the language.) I expect
"comprises of" is already in the OED.
Post by Ed Cryer
My addition.
Grammatically "comprise" is an active verb, and transitive. X comprises
Y & Z. Ergo it can be turned into a passive voice; Y & Z are comprised
by X. I suppose that the "of" has replaced the "by" in the same way
I suspect you're right ...
Post by Ed Cryer
that it has in "composed of" and "made up of".
... though not in that example: you would never even in the past have
said "is composed by", if you were discussing what something is made
from (or "up of"); the only time you'd use "composed by" would involve
"Mozart, or one of that crowd".
Post by Ed Cryer
Ed
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.
Wolf K
2018-06-27 00:53:26 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Ed Cryer
My addition.
Grammatically "comprise" is an active verb, and transitive. X
comprises Y & Z. Ergo it can be turned into a passive voice; Y & Z are
comprised by X. I suppose that the "of" has replaced the "by" in the
same way
I suspect you're right ...
If X comprises Y & Z, then X is comprised of Y & Z. Horrible, I know,
but that's current usage. One that I avoid. Well, actually, I avoid
"comprise", it's one of those supposedly literary words that anxious
writers use instead of the more common one.

Strunk & White, Elements of Style: "Avoid the passive voice."
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
What you choose to do with your body will, inevitably, have
psychological consequences.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-06-27 01:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
[...]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Ed Cryer
My addition.
Grammatically "comprise" is an active verb, and transitive. X
comprises Y & Z. Ergo it can be turned into a passive voice; Y & Z
are comprised by X. I suppose that the "of" has replaced the "by" in
the same way
I suspect you're right ...
If X comprises Y & Z, then X is comprised of Y & Z. Horrible, I know,
I don't _think_ your inversion is correct - try it with "includes":
X includes Y and Z, but X is included of Y and Z? I think not. (Wouldn't
work with "contains", either.) I think comprise (and include, for that
matter) are verbs that can't _be_ passivated. (?!) Although "... is
included" I have heard - tax, for example; if something follows, I think
"in" gets added - "is included in the price". ("Contained in" too - "is
contained in a nice leather case".) Though I don't think "is comprised
in" works either.
Post by Wolf K
but that's current usage.
And current usage becomes accepted, and eventually "correct". [But not
where I'm around it doesn't (-:!]
Post by Wolf K
One that I avoid. Well, actually, I avoid "comprise", it's one of
those supposedly literary words that anxious writers use instead of the
more common one.
Yes, I tend to think people who use "comprised of" are _trying_ to be
literary by not using "consists of". I'm not sure why I used "comprises"
(_without_ "of") in the example that started this thread; it just "felt
right", which I know isn't an explanation.
Post by Wolf K
Strunk & White, Elements of Style: "Avoid the passive voice."
Yes, the passive voice is to be avoided (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A perfectionist takes infinite pains and often gives them to others
Mayayana
2018-06-27 12:46:02 UTC
Permalink
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote

| I don't _think_ your inversion is correct - try it with "includes":
| X includes Y and Z, but X is included of Y and Z? I think not. (Wouldn't
| work with "contains", either.)

My Websters dictionary lists both usages:

1) include. contain.

2) to consist of (a nation comprising 13 states)

3) to make up; form; constitute (a nation comprised of 13 states)

At the end of # 3 it then says this: "In this
sense regarded by some as a loose usage."

I kid you not. Though one wonders what they
mean by loose here, doesn't one? It sounds like
a passive-aggressive moral judgement, accusing
someone of conjugating with shady characters.
Then again, what isn't loose by British standards?

| I think comprise (and include, for that
| matter) are verbs that can't _be_ passivated.

I do hope they shoot people in England for such
lawless verbification.
Interestingly, passivate actually is a word. It
means to put a protective coating on metal.

One of the MS pages about their rewards
suggests that people can visit the rewards
options page when they feel "spendy". But
MS are comprised of techies, who have never
been famour for literacy. MS have a long history
of artlessly contorting the language in the
interest of marketing. Even Bill Gates, who
comprises the most geniussy guy in his own mind,
seems to limit himself to only one, adolescent,
superlative: super. As in, "That chick is super
well comprised."
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-06-28 11:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| X includes Y and Z, but X is included of Y and Z? I think not. (Wouldn't
| work with "contains", either.)
1) include. contain.
2) to consist of (a nation comprising 13 states)
I like; no "of".
Post by Mayayana
3) to make up; form; constitute (a nation comprised of 13 states)
At the end of # 3 it then says this: "In this
sense regarded by some as a loose usage."
I'm one of those some. (Is that grammatical?)
Post by Mayayana
I kid you not. Though one wonders what they
mean by loose here, doesn't one? It sounds like
a passive-aggressive moral judgement, accusing
someone of conjugating with shady characters.
Lovely!
Post by Mayayana
Then again, what isn't loose by British standards?
(Don't talk to me about British Standards. The British Standards
Institution charges for them. [IMO standards, like patents and several
other similar things, should be free.])
Post by Mayayana
| I think comprise (and include, for that
| matter) are verbs that can't _be_ passivated.
I do hope they shoot people in England for such
lawless verbification.
I am _really_ enjoying your use of language (-:.
Post by Mayayana
Interestingly, passivate actually is a word. It
means to put a protective coating on metal.
I actually knew that (hence my "(?!)"). I don't think it ever meant make
passive though - not of a verb anyway!
Post by Mayayana
One of the MS pages about their rewards
suggests that people can visit the rewards
options page when they feel "spendy". But
I rather like "spendy"!
Post by Mayayana
MS are comprised of techies, who have never
(You did that "comprised of" deliberately, didn't you!)
Post by Mayayana
been famour for literacy. MS have a long history
of artlessly contorting the language in the
interest of marketing. Even Bill Gates, who
comprises the most geniussy guy in his own mind,
seems to limit himself to only one, adolescent,
superlative: super. As in, "That chick is super
well comprised."
My parents would have loved your love of language.
There was a BBC comedy series (called "The Fall and Rise of Reginald
Perrin" - I'd recommend it), in which there were a couple of young men
characters; when a boss said something, one of them would almost always
say "great", to which the other would inevitably respond "super". After
a reversal of fortune of the company, they got jobs similar to what
they'd had before, but changed to "marvellous" and "terrific".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

so that the vendors can "serve you better". As if you were a tennis ball, I
guess. - Wolf K, in alt.windows7.general, 2014-7-21
Mayayana
2018-06-28 11:53:11 UTC
Permalink
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote

| > One of the MS pages about their rewards
| >suggests that people can visit the rewards
| >options page when they feel "spendy". But
|
| I rather like "spendy"!
|

Really? I cringed at it. But I've noticed that
Brits like a touch of cuteness. Windy, for instance.
Or the nicknames among the upper class, which
seem to be silly in direct proportion to a person's
social importance.

| >MS are comprised of techies, who have never
|
| (You did that "comprised of" deliberately, didn't you!)
|

I'll never tell. :)

| There was a BBC comedy series (called "The Fall and Rise of Reginald
| Perrin" - I'd recommend it), in which there were a couple of young men
| characters; when a boss said something, one of them would almost always
| say "great", to which the other would inevitably respond "super". After
| a reversal of fortune of the company, they got jobs similar to what
| they'd had before, but changed to "marvellous" and "terrific".

I've often appreciated British culture for the
use of English. It's their language and it shows.
They often use it respectfully and lovingly.
I liked the Jeeves And Wooster series for that.
It was also a great example of silly upper class
names.

In the US there's little appreciation for the art
of language. Like everything else, it's an athletic
competition, with points being awarded for swagger
and fashion, yo.
NY
2018-06-28 16:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
In the US there's little appreciation for the art
of language. Like everything else, it's an athletic
competition, with points being awarded for swagger
and fashion, yo.
America is great for coming up with new usages and phrases which we in the
UK condemn as "too American", and then a few decades later we start to adopt
as if we'd invented them :-)

However the one word that still grates on my ears, several decades after I
first heard it, is the business buzzword "leverage", as in "we will grow (*)
our business in order to leverage an increase in market penetration". OK, I
made that one up! I don't know whether it means anything because I've never
known *precisely* what "leverage" means. And anyway, in the UK we pronounce
the noun "leever" rather than "levver", so it would be "levverage" :-)

The ultimate teeth-on-edge usage is when someone asks a waiter "can I get a
cup of coffee" - meaning "will *you* get *me* a cup of coffee". "Can I get"
suggests that I want to go to the machine and get myself a cup, which is not
what you are asking the waiter.


(*) That's another bugbear: the transitive use of "grow" in the sense of
"cause to grow". You can grow flowers, but growing a business - what sort of
seeds do you start with? ;-)
Big Al
2018-06-28 16:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
  In the US there's little appreciation for the art
of language. Like everything else, it's an athletic
competition, with points being awarded for swagger
and fashion, yo.
America is great for coming up with new usages and phrases which we in
the UK condemn as "too American", and then a few decades later we start
to adopt as if we'd invented them :-)
However the one word that still grates on my ears, several decades after
I first heard it, is the business buzzword "leverage", as in "we will
grow (*) our business in order to leverage an increase in market
penetration". OK, I made that one up! I don't know whether it means
anything because I've never known *precisely* what "leverage" means. And
anyway, in the UK we pronounce the noun "leever" rather than "levver",
so it would be "levverage" :-)
The ultimate teeth-on-edge usage is when someone asks a waiter "can I
get a cup of coffee" - meaning "will *you* get *me* a cup of coffee".
"Can I get" suggests that I want to go to the machine and get myself a
cup, which is not what you are asking the waiter.
I would say the sentence should be "may I get a cup of coffee" if that
was the intent, as I know I can, but may I? That's a teeth-on-edge
thing for me, the can/may and their/there/they're issue. I stop or
I'll go on for pages. :-)
Post by NY
(*) That's another bugbear: the transitive use of "grow" in the sense of
"cause to grow". You can grow flowers, but growing a business - what
sort of seeds do you start with? ;-)
Al
Char Jackson
2018-06-28 22:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Al
Post by NY
  In the US there's little appreciation for the art
of language. Like everything else, it's an athletic
competition, with points being awarded for swagger
and fashion, yo.
America is great for coming up with new usages and phrases which we in
the UK condemn as "too American", and then a few decades later we start
to adopt as if we'd invented them :-)
However the one word that still grates on my ears, several decades after
I first heard it, is the business buzzword "leverage", as in "we will
grow (*) our business in order to leverage an increase in market
penetration". OK, I made that one up! I don't know whether it means
anything because I've never known *precisely* what "leverage" means. And
anyway, in the UK we pronounce the noun "leever" rather than "levver",
so it would be "levverage" :-)
The ultimate teeth-on-edge usage is when someone asks a waiter "can I
get a cup of coffee" - meaning "will *you* get *me* a cup of coffee".
"Can I get" suggests that I want to go to the machine and get myself a
cup, which is not what you are asking the waiter.
I would say the sentence should be "may I get a cup of coffee" if that
was the intent, as I know I can, but may I? That's a teeth-on-edge
thing for me, the can/may and their/there/they're issue. I stop or
I'll go on for pages. :-)
"Can I get a cup of coffee" - you're asking the server to make a medical
diagnosis as to whether you'd be physically able to do it. The literal
answer is probably yes, seeing as how you were able to push the door
open, walk in, make your way to a table and sit down. The server will
automatically translate the question into one that makes more sense. :)

"May I get a cup of coffee" - you're asking the server for permission to
get up and get yourself a cup of coffee. Likely, they'll mentally reject
that idea and simply offer to bring it, instead.

"Will you please bring..." and "I would like to have...", and "May I
have...", as examples, are probably closer to correct, but the wrong
versions are so widely used that few even notice anymore.

I'm not a language/grammar geek, so it's entirely possible that my usage
is wrong, as well. I went to Public School. :)
--
Char Jackson
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-06-29 05:53:44 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@4ax.com>, Char Jackson
<***@none.invalid> writes:
[]
Post by Char Jackson
I'm not a language/grammar geek, so it's entirely possible that my usage
is wrong, as well. I went to Public School. :)
Even there, you can't escape the "two nations divided by a common
language" matter!

What I think is called a public school, or the public school system, in
the USA, is called a state school, or other terms, in the UK.

In the UK, "public school" usually means the ones (mostly) attended by
the privileged - i. e. fee-paying. (The well-known ones like Eton and
Harrow, but really any fee-paying one.) I've never been sure why we call
them "public schools" - I think the argument might be that they are
_open_ to any member of the public who can afford the fees, though if
that _is_ the argument it's a weak one, since many have entrance exam.s.

Further: US usage, I understand, uses "school" to include both child and
adult education; in UK, with certain (mostly subject-specific)
exceptions, where you go to get your degree is "university", "school"
being for age 5 to about 16 or 18 only. (So "where did you go to school"
has a different meaning in the two countries: isn't often asked in UK.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Of course, this show - like every other cop show on earth - massively
overstates the prevalence of violent crime: last year, in the whole of the UK,
police fired their weapons just three times. And there were precisely zero
fatalities. - Vincent Graff in RT, 2014/11/8-14
Wolf K
2018-06-29 13:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Char Jackson
I'm not a language/grammar geek, so it's entirely possible that my usage
is wrong, as well. I went to Public School. :)
Even there, you can't escape the "two nations divided by a common
language" matter!
What I think is called a public school, or the public school system, in
the USA, is called a state school, or other terms, in the UK.
"Public school" in the USA and Canada usually means primary and usually
also middle school (years K to 8). It's often is used in contrast to
faith-based schools. The upper grades are "high school".

Grammar is taught in public school. High school English/Language
curricula generally assume knowledge of that grammar. It's very badly
taught, mixing grammar and usage indiscriminately, and using conflicting
and sometimes incorrect linguistic concepts. The result is an
inconsistent and confusing theory of how English speakers use the
language, which causes a great deal of, er, discussion. It is IMO the
main reason Americans tend to be more anxious about their public
language, and often over-correct and use unnecessarily elevated vocabulary.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In the UK, "public school" usually means the ones (mostly) attended by
the privileged - i. e. fee-paying. (The well-known ones like Eton and
Harrow, but really any fee-paying one.) I've never been sure why we call
them "public schools" - I think the argument might be that they are
_open_ to any member of the public who can afford the fees, though if
that _is_ the argument it's a weak one, since many have entrance exam.s.
IIRC, they were called "public" in contrast to the schools run by the
church. But I didn't search for confirmation.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Further: US usage, I understand, uses "school" to include both child and
adult education; in UK, with certain (mostly subject-specific)
exceptions, where you go to get your degree is "university", "school"
being for age 5 to about 16 or 18 only. (So "where did you go to school"
has a different meaning in the two countries: isn't often asked in UK.)
"School" for post-secondary education is usually informal, but there are
exceptions: Eg, at Ryerson University in Toronto there is a "Rotman
School of Business". It's what is usually called a faculty over here.
This use of "school" for "faculty" is spreading, probably because of the
increasing influence of donors, who like to see their names on buildings
and letterheads.
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
What you choose to do with your body will, inevitably, have
psychological consequences.
Mayayana
2018-06-29 14:03:08 UTC
Permalink
"Wolf K" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote

| "Public school" in the USA and Canada usually means primary and usually
| also middle school (years K to 8). It's often is used in contrast to
| faith-based schools. The upper grades are "high school".
|

They're all known as public school, as far as I know.
And they contrast to private schools, which are commercial.
Taxes pay for public school. Tuition and private funding
pay for private schools. That could be a Catholic school,
but perhaps just as common are "academies" for the wealthy
and gifted. And probably increasingly common are evangelical
schools, with textbooks showing Moses riding a dinosaur.

| Grammar is taught in public school. High school English/Language
| curricula generally assume knowledge of that grammar. It's very badly
| taught, mixing grammar and usage indiscriminately, and using conflicting
| and sometimes incorrect linguistic concepts.

I don't think you can generalize accurately about
American public schools. Since they're mostly funded
by local property taxes, the quality of teaching varies
quite a bit. It also varies by culture. Not long ago,
basic writing and math were all anyone needed. Kids
took off from school to help with the harvest. Today,
many rural areas may avoid investment in public schools.
Many urban areas may not be able to afford it. But in
between, the property values in the suburbs are largely
assigned based on school quality. Parents want the best
schools they can afford. So one school has 35 kids in a
class, with few if any electives. Another school has
bottled water dispensers in the hallways, small classes,
top teachers, and an MRI in the science lab.

What I find more striking today is the poor quality
of college education. People are getting bachelors
degrees who are all but illiterate and can't think
analytically. At one time college was meant to teach
future leaders to think and to provide them with
well-rounded knowledge. Today it's a required step
to get a no-skills office job. The graduating student
may have gone to college mostly to avoid adulthood.
At best it provides them with a cultural language
and connections to reach a white collar lifestyle.

| It is IMO the
| main reason Americans tend to be more anxious about their public
| language, and often over-correct and use unnecessarily elevated
vocabulary.
|

I once read an interesting [British] book. I can't
remember the name of it now. It detailed the creation
of made-up words in the Colonies, where people were
intimidated by educated Brits arriving in the New World.
So they made up "highfalutin" words "out of whole
cloth", to sound important. :)

The same thing then repeated as people moved
west and rural settlers felt intimidated by Easterners.

That may partially account for the general American
trend toward valuing ignorance and even conflating
it with decency. A smart kid is a showoff. Giftedness
undermines democracy. Thus, we should all be trained
to equality in all things.

It points to the central American confusion. We
idealize equality while trying to escape it. We reject
class while pursuing it. In Britain, class is an accepted
part of the social order. In the US, we like to pretend
it doesn't exist. We'll talk about sexism, racism,
etc but it's very hard for people to recognize the
fundamental inequality of wealth.

More recently, though, I think the awareness of
language as a social and business tool has become
much more sophisticated than it used to be. People
often speak in a technical manner, often favoring Greek
and Latin roots over Germanic, because it seems
authoritative. (Handiwork becomes manual labor.
Boyfriend/girlfriend becomes significant other.)

I had a work estimate recently for a woman
who's a Shakespearean professor of English. She
said something on the phone that I can't quite recall
now, in reference to our trying to find a time to meet.
I think it was something like, "Let me know when
you're free. We'll get this coordinated." Breathtaking
artlessness from an English professor. And impersonal.
But it sounds official. (The estimate never happened,
though. She was an important person, always on the
go, and didn't even listen to her phone messages.
There was no way to "coordinate" with her!)

Another interesting language change:

I know very few people today who have a regional
accent. That's another thing that college now does.
Eliminate cultural flavor that might be assoicated with
ignorance, so that everyone sounds like they're from
Ohio, with the exception of whiny young celebrities
who employ a nearly constant vocal fry to sound
upper class. It's almost Orwellian. All quirks must be
erased in the successful person, so that they act
almost as an automaton.

So there are a lot of factors there in both the
breakdown of literacy and the rise of official-speak.

I just saw a video of Stephen Colbert interviewing
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who just won an upset
election in NYC. She's well spoken, seems both
intelligent and decent, yet her speech is peppered
with, "so I was like", "so he was like", "so I go",
"so he goes". She talks like a teenager.

So I'm like, way to not intimidate the electorate,
dude.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-06-30 13:17:27 UTC
Permalink
In message <ph5eaf$5gq$***@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<***@invalid.nospam> writes:
[]
Post by Mayayana
and gifted. And probably increasingly common are evangelical
schools, with textbooks showing Moses riding a dinosaur.
I like it (-:
[]
Post by Mayayana
What I find more striking today is the poor quality
of college education. People are getting bachelors
degrees who are all but illiterate and can't think
On the whole, I'm against literacy being considered that important in,
say, scientific subjects - *provided the candidate can actually
communicate effectively*, their knowledge _of the subject_ is what
should be being tested. I particularly find unpleasant the prejudice
against multi-choice tests versus those in essay form, which seemed (at
least when I was being educated, 30-40 years ago, in UK) an attempt to
preserve privilege. (And I _could_ and can still write well, so it
wasn't just an I'm-being-discriminated-against POV.)
Post by Mayayana
analytically. At one time college was meant to teach
future leaders to think and to provide them with
well-rounded knowledge. Today it's a required step
Yes, the ability to think analytically is paramount.
Post by Mayayana
to get a no-skills office job. The graduating student
Yes; this has come as a side-effect (UK, anyway - us may be different
due to the funding model) of the view that "everyone should have the
opportunity to go to university". I actually agree with the basic
thought behind that, but it has been translated into "everyone should go
to university", which is a different thing entirely!
Post by Mayayana
may have gone to college mostly to avoid adulthood.
At best it provides them with a cultural language
and connections to reach a white collar lifestyle.
|-:
[]
Post by Mayayana
That may partially account for the general American
trend toward valuing ignorance and even conflating
it with decency. A smart kid is a showoff. Giftedness
undermines democracy. Thus, we should all be trained
to equality in all things.
Which in some cases means downwards - which is a loss to society. We're
all good for _something_ - even those who can't think very well!
(Though, I admit, it's often quite hard work to figure out _what_ some
people are good for! But it doesn't mean they're _less_ useful.)
Post by Mayayana
It points to the central American confusion. We
idealize equality while trying to escape it. We reject
class while pursuing it. In Britain, class is an accepted
part of the social order. In the US, we like to pretend
it doesn't exist. We'll talk about sexism, racism,
etc but it's very hard for people to recognize the
fundamental inequality of wealth.
I think the American perception of the British attitude to class tends
to be a little exaggerated - as does the British perception of the
importance of wealth in America.
Post by Mayayana
More recently, though, I think the awareness of
language as a social and business tool has become
much more sophisticated than it used to be. People
often speak in a technical manner, often favoring Greek
and Latin roots over Germanic, because it seems
authoritative. (Handiwork becomes manual labor.
Boyfriend/girlfriend becomes significant other.)
(Though that last one is at least partially due to the desire to remove
gender-specific terminology [and allow same-gender, too].)
Post by Mayayana
I had a work estimate recently for a woman
(What's a work estimate?)
Post by Mayayana
who's a Shakespearean professor of English. She
Not a professor of Shakespearean English?) [Discuss (-:!]
[]
Post by Mayayana
I know very few people today who have a regional
accent. That's another thing that college now does.
It was once said that broadcasting would do similar. But - despite about
a century of broadcasting, and several decades of widespread tertiary
education, regional accents seem to be surviving and thriving here,
despite it being such a relatively small country! On the whole they've
moderated to the extent that people from the different regions can now
_understand_ each other, which wasn't always the case (I've met elderly
Geordies and people from other reasons whom I struggle to understand),
but there are definite regional accents - and regional identity feeling
is strong.
Post by Mayayana
Eliminate cultural flavor that might be assoicated with
ignorance, so that everyone sounds like they're from
Ohio, with the exception of whiny young celebrities
who employ a nearly constant vocal fry to sound
upper class. It's almost Orwellian. All quirks must be
erased in the successful person, so that they act
almost as an automaton.
Here, the _stronger_ variants (in both accent and vocabulary) are
knocked off by contact with others, but the underlying accents remain.
Post by Mayayana
So there are a lot of factors there in both the
breakdown of literacy and the rise of official-speak.
I just saw a video of Stephen Colbert interviewing
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who just won an upset
election in NYC. She's well spoken, seems both
intelligent and decent, yet her speech is peppered
with, "so I was like", "so he was like", "so I go",
"so he goes". She talks like a teenager.
So I'm like, way to not intimidate the electorate,
dude.
When they _try_ to be something they're not, they usually fail. The
exception is when the difference is _very_ great and deception is not
intended: when Jimmy Carter visited the north-east of England and said
"Howway the lads" (supporting cry for the local football team), the
locals loved him for trying, even though he said it with an atrocious
American accent; similarly "eech been ein Berliner". [Which I've been
assured did _not_ mean "I am a jam do(ugh)nut."]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Usenet is a way of being annoyed by people you otherwise never would have
met."
- John J. Kinyon
Mayayana
2018-06-30 14:37:25 UTC
Permalink
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote

| > And probably increasingly common are evangelical
| >schools, with textbooks showing Moses riding a dinosaur.
|
| I like it (-:

I don't know if you're aware of the reference there.
If you search for something like:

biblical theme park dinosaur

you'll find lots of links to parks and Summer camps that
attempt to beat evolutionists at their own dogma by
fitting dinosaurs in during the early days of creation.
(The 1st thousand years, maybe? I don't know.) There's
at least one place that has dino models with saddles.

| > What I find more striking today is the poor quality
| >of college education. People are getting bachelors
| >degrees who are all but illiterate and can't think
|
| On the whole, I'm against literacy being considered that important in,
| say, scientific subjects - *provided the candidate can actually
| communicate effectively*, their knowledge _of the subject_ is what
| should be being tested. I particularly find unpleasant the prejudice
| against multi-choice tests versus those in essay form, which seemed (at
| least when I was being educated, 30-40 years ago, in UK) an attempt to
| preserve privilege. (And I _could_ and can still write well, so it
| wasn't just an I'm-being-discriminated-against POV.)
|

I'm talking about English literacy. College graduates
who speak like teenagers and write like kids. It's
become the norm in the US. They don't have to
have basic skills in order to graduate. The most bright
will pick up these things eventually, but most need
guidance that they never get.

| But I strongly agree with the next bit:
|
| >analytically. At one time college was meant to teach
| >future leaders to think and to provide them with
| >well-rounded knowledge. Today it's a required step
|
| Yes, the ability to think analytically is paramount.
|
| >to get a no-skills office job. The graduating student
|
| Yes; this has come as a side-effect (UK, anyway - us may be different
| due to the funding model) of the view that "everyone should have the
| opportunity to go to university". I actually agree with the basic
| thought behind that, but it has been translated into "everyone should go
| to university", which is a different thing entirely!
|

It's the same in the US. Kids are ending up with
massive loan debt but unable to get a job to pay
off that debt. They're operating on an outdated
model. It used to be that a janitor could buy
a house and raise kids. A bank teller could buy a
nicer house. Today, if you're not a couple with
both making well over 100K then you'd better be
househunting in a Kansas ghost town. You won't
be able to afford to buy anywhere else. Or rent,
for that matter.
(And yet there are millions of highly educated,
feminist, female lawyers and doctors, dropping
off their kids at daycare they can barely afford,
and thinking, "I showed them! A woman can be
anything!".... Yes. Even a broke workaholic with
a PhD.)

The whole landscape has changed dramatically.
Partly it's due to foreign investment in real estate.
Partly it's due to the age of plutocracy ushered
in by Reagan and Thatcher, among others. But
whatever the cause, the numbers just don't add up.
College costs up to 100K+ per year with graduates
lucky to make $15-20/hour when they graduate.

Meanwhile, the going rate for a plumber where I
live was $150-200/hour last I heard. :)

| > It points to the central American confusion. We
| >idealize equality while trying to escape it. We reject
| >class while pursuing it. In Britain, class is an accepted
| >part of the social order. In the US, we like to pretend
| >it doesn't exist. We'll talk about sexism, racism,
| >etc but it's very hard for people to recognize the
| >fundamental inequality of wealth.
|
| I think the American perception of the British attitude to class tends
| to be a little exaggerated - as does the British perception of the
| importance of wealth in America.

Maybe. But when I visited Britain that was one of
the things that struck me most. Class was institutionalized.
It's subtle here. The ruling class bluebloods wear jeans and
sneakers, and if you meet one for lunch you'll probably
go dutch. To do otherwise would mean both of you facing
the inexplicable injustice of one person in a democracy
having 4 houses and a private hunting preserve, while
another can't afford a 1-bedroom apt.

You live with monarchy. We flirt with it, always
tipping back and forth between monarchy and socialism.
Monarchy is too animalistic to endure. Socialism is too
demanding to be feasible.

Interestingly, it's typically the very wealthy here who
have a sense of noblesse oblige and tip toward socialism.
(FDRoosevelt and JFKennedy) The plain old Americans
(Reagan, Clintons, Obama) tend to be more supportive
of a king-of-the-hill approach. (For that reason I wish
that Al Gore had got in. He doesn't have the necessary
charm to be president, but I expect he does have a
strong sense of noblesse oblige. That's also a big part of
why Hillary lost to a psychopath. She's in the pocket of
big business, views politics itself as a business, and had
no vision of leadership. People could sense that. Bill
Clinton was the same, but had the charm of a real
leader.)

The most selfish tend to be the recent immigrants, who
idealize America in the simplest terms and think purely in
terms of king-of-the-hill. The tragedy of Antonin Scalia
being on the U.S. Supreme Court is a prime example of
that.

| > I know very few people today who have a regional
| >accent. That's another thing that college now does.
|
| It was once said that broadcasting would do similar. But - despite about
| a century of broadcasting, and several decades of widespread tertiary
| education, regional accents seem to be surviving and thriving here,
| despite it being such a relatively small country! On the whole they've
| moderated to the extent that people from the different regions can now
| _understand_ each other, which wasn't always the case (I've met elderly
| Geordies and people from other reasons whom I struggle to understand),
| but there are definite regional accents - and regional identity feeling
| is strong.
|

That's interesting. Maybe it has something to do with
accent being such an important social signal in England?
In the US we have democratic idealism, with the idea that
everyone should be the same. Coupled with that is a more
recent, superficial kind of "roots" trip. Postmodern ethnicity
and authenticity. Everyone needs to have a unique claim
to authenticity (except for us poor, white males) but let's
not get carried away. Do it tastefully.
It's reached a comical point in the local news broadcasts.
We have one news announcer here named Amaka Ubaka. I
can't remember any others offhand, but nearly all have
uniquely ethnic names. The Hispanics will pronounce
theirs with full Spanish pronuciation, while speaking like
whitebread Ohio otherwise: "This is Maria Allejandra
Castanedo del Toro, reporting from Target at the
Southside Shopping Mall." (Imagine that with extra stress
on the spanish r, n, and j.)

The national, CBS, DC correspondent lately is a Chinese-
American woman with a difficult to pronounce name but
pure American accent.

Of course there's no problem with ethnic news
announcers. But it's become de rigeur to be
glaringly not Anglo or common American mongrel. A
notable majority have very ethic names but not a
trace of ethnic behavior or accent. And of course
they all have that other basic requirement of good
journalism -- great cheekbones. :)

| similarly "eech been ein Berliner". [Which I've been
| assured did _not_ mean "I am a jam do(ugh)nut."

Did JFK say that badly? I'd assumed he was
so slick that he probably would have practiced
it to perfection.
On the other hand, he wasn't so great at
speaking English, either. As a Bostonian travelling
elsewhere it used to be common for people to
remark that I didn't talk like the Kennedys. I
don't know anyone who talks like the Kennedys.

But...bless their hearts... they were a good
example of the kind of "high literacy" one rarely
hears anymore. Ted Kennedy was probably the last
person I ever heard give a speech that was both
rousing *and* deeply insightful. Most are happy
to achieve rousing.
pyotr filipivich
2018-06-30 16:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
The whole landscape has changed dramatically.
Partly it's due to foreign investment in real estate.
Partly it's due to the age of plutocracy ushered
in by Reagan and Thatcher, among others. But
whatever the cause, the numbers just don't add up.
College costs up to 100K+ per year with graduates
lucky to make $15-20/hour when they graduate.
A good chunk of that College "tuition" is going to "overhead":
Administrative Staff, Climbing Walls in the state of the art
recreation center, dormitories which are nicer than their first
apartment will be, assistants to the deputy director for the
intersectional grievance committee. Etc, etc, etc.
All funded by "free" money for students & subsidized student
loans. Which means College Administrators get the money, and the
students (and the tax payers) get the bill.
Which also means, that the cost of a college degree has been
rising a multiples of the inflation rate, while the value has been
plummeting.
Post by Mayayana
Meanwhile, the going rate for a plumber where I
live was $150-200/hour last I heard. :)
"Ick - work with my hands?"

The first two things to remember about plumbing:
1) Water Flows Down Hill.
2) It ain't all Water.
And the second two things are like unto tit:
3) Don't bite your nails.
4) Payday is Thursday.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
Mayayana
2018-06-30 16:04:52 UTC
Permalink
"pyotr filipivich" <***@mindspring.com> wrote
|
| A good chunk of that College "tuition" is going to "overhead":
| Administrative Staff, Climbing Walls in the state of the art
| recreation center, dormitories which are nicer than their first
| apartment will be, assistants to the deputy director for the
| intersectional grievance committee. Etc, etc, etc.

How do we know that? Now that you mention
it, I don't think I've ever seen an analysis. Though
I fdo know that Harvard's endowment is now well
over $50 billion. There seems to be no limit to how
big they think they should get.

| The first two things to remember about plumbing:
| 1) Water Flows Down Hill.
| 2) It ain't all Water.
| And the second two things are like unto tit:
| 3) Don't bite your nails.
| 4) Payday is Thursday.
|

You clever fellow. I can see you don't need
the dubious benefit of a college education.
pyotr filipivich
2018-07-01 16:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
|
| Administrative Staff, Climbing Walls in the state of the art
| recreation center, dormitories which are nicer than their first
| apartment will be, assistants to the deputy director for the
| intersectional grievance committee. Etc, etc, etc.
How do we know that?
The colleges will announce with a straight face that they have
hired x number of "facilitators", or the competition of such a
facility, etc.
The other thing to remember, "diversity" in UniSpeak means
diversity of shape, color, gender, but conformity of thought. (Which
isn't quite true, many universities are ready to accept any school of
thought from Left all the way through to the Ultra-left..)
Post by Mayayana
Now that you mention
it, I don't think I've ever seen an analysis. Though
I fdo know that Harvard's endowment is now well
over $50 billion. There seems to be no limit to how
big they think they should get.
| 1) Water Flows Down Hill.
| 2) It ain't all Water.
| 3) Don't bite your nails.
| 4) Payday is Thursday.
|
You clever fellow. I can see you don't need
the dubious benefit of a college education.
With Age, comes Wisdom.
Although far too often, Age Travels alone.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
Mayayana
2018-07-01 17:15:20 UTC
Permalink
"pyotr filipivich" <***@mindspring.com> wrote

| The other thing to remember, "diversity" in UniSpeak means
| diversity of shape, color, gender, but conformity of thought.

Well put.

| (Which
| isn't quite true, many universities are ready to accept any school of
| thought from Left all the way through to the Ultra-left..)
|

I'm not so sure about that. I see a building
"neo-fascism" of the extreme left, for lack of
a better term. A moralistic dogma that seems to
be anti-intellect and demands obedience. Even
the moderate left is seen to betray them.

To believe that gender exists is perceived as
an act of aggression and suppression of freedom.
Believing that race exists may only be done as an
act of cultural self-expression by minorities. To
assert any category at all constitutes a limitation
to the cult of Self in its dizzy attempts to
optimize personal fulfillment and perform its highest
religious ritual: "self expression". To assert the
possibility of any existential limitation is to be either
an oppressor or a quitter, depending on what the
limitation is.
(Which gets a bit sticky. What defines this Self,
after all, other than it's rejection of definition?
Where is the core that's *not* merely reaction
against other? And what existential freedom can
any Self have, other than the freedom to relate
to reality? Freedom of speech is one thing. Freedom
from all limitations is a naive misunderstanding.)

I've recently been reading about "4th wave
feminism". One of its main creators, a young,
lesbian, English professor in Britain, says the basis
of this 4th wave is "incredulity that [views she
disagrees with] can still exist".

It makes fundamentalist Christians seem
tolerant, thoughtful and inclusive.

It's a statement at once naive, arrogant,
comical and chilling. My best guess is that this
intolerance is coming out of a culture of young
people who represent a unique blend of being
inexperienced, spirited and spoiled.

But maybe I'm just getting old. I come out of
the hippie generation, when teenagers took over
college faculty buildings. The older people then
must have wondered whether the end of the
world was coming. (The majority of Americans
in '68 thought the students massacred at Kent
State got what they deserved. Their protests
were regarded as a sort of cultural treason.)

I suppose that by comparison, Twitter-activism,
posting outrage that one has to tolerate the
existence of different ideas, next to one's post
about liking Cocoa Puffs and between 2 ads for
candy bars, could be seen as being kind of cute.

NY
2018-06-29 14:07:07 UTC
Permalink
donors, who like to see their names on buildings and letterheads.
That reminds me of something I noticed when I was over in the USA (Boston
area, visiting my sister and her family who were living there at the time).
On buildings which are named after benefactors, and on people's name badges
on their office doors and on letterheads etc) there's much more use of
people's middle initials than in the UK. Here, a middle name is something
that is rarely used apart from official forms which require all your names.
But in the USA, it almost seems like a badge of honour to flaunt your middle
initial: no-one is just "John Smith" or "Dave Jones" - they are all "John H
Smith" or "Dave A Jones" - even for uncommon names where the middle name
isn't need to avoid ambiguity. And there's this habit, which the UK
perceives as being very American, of a father, son and grandson all having
the same first name and having to be distinguished by suffixes "John Smith
II", "John Smith III" etc.

Could be worse, though: in some European countries (France, Spain), you get
men whose middle name is a woman's (possibly their mother's or
grandmother's). José María Olazábal, Jean-Marie le Pen etc. That's a bit too
close to "A Boy Named Sue" for British tastes :-)

We all have our national peculiarities. I'm sure we Brits do.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-06-30 12:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Char Jackson
I'm not a language/grammar geek, so it's entirely possible that my usage
is wrong, as well. I went to Public School. :)
Even there, you can't escape the "two nations divided by a common
language" matter!
What I think is called a public school, or the public school system,
in the USA, is called a state school, or other terms, in the UK.
"Public school" in the USA and Canada usually means primary and usually
also middle school (years K to 8). It's often is used in contrast to
faith-based schools. The upper grades are "high school".
I guess we'd say secondary school for the 11 (sometimes 13) to 16/18
part, but on the whole we rarely use the qualifiers, just saying school.
Post by Wolf K
Grammar is taught in public school. High school English/Language
curricula generally assume knowledge of that grammar. It's very badly
taught, mixing grammar and usage indiscriminately, and using
conflicting and sometimes incorrect linguistic concepts. The result is
[]
You remind me of another matter, "grammar schools" - a matter which
raises much political heat here in the UK. They're mainly state-funded
schools, generally perceived (by both sides of the debate, though their
opponents hate to admit it) as providing a better standard; I'm not
_sure_ what differentiates them from other state-funded schools, though
I _think_ it's selection (i. e. there is an entrance examination, and
those who fail to reach some level go to other schools, which used to be
called "comprehensive" or "secondary modern", though there has been
fragmentation of late, with some being called things like "academy"
[though grammar schools can be academies too, I think]). The main
confusion in the name is that the teaching of (English) grammar, as
such, is _not_ nominally any different between grammar schools and
not-grammar schools (though I imagine it once might have been for the
name to have come about).
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In the UK, "public school" usually means the ones (mostly) attended
by the privileged - i. e. fee-paying. (The well-known ones like Eton
and Harrow, but really any fee-paying one.) I've never been sure why
we call them "public schools" - I think the argument might be that
they are _open_ to any member of the public who can afford the fees,
though if that _is_ the argument it's a weak one, since many have
entrance exam.s.
IIRC, they were called "public" in contrast to the schools run by the
church. But I didn't search for confirmation.
You may well be right. Though here, now, a lot of state-funded schools
_are_ nominally at least connected with some religion - usually branches
of the Christian faith, such as Anglican (C. of E.) or (Roman) Catholic,
thought some Muslim, and I presume some others. (I don't know of any
specifically atheist ones!) There's periodic friction about whether
association with the nominal religion has to be a qualification for
admission, and whether state funding should continue if it either is or
isn't. And you hear of families changing allegiance - or pretending to -
to get their kids into what is perceived to be a good school. (And
moving house, but you say that happens in the us too.)
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Further: US usage, I understand, uses "school" to include both child
and adult education; in UK, with certain (mostly subject-specific)
exceptions, where you go to get your degree is "university", "school"
being for age 5 to about 16 or 18 only. (So "where did you go to
school" has a different meaning in the two countries: isn't often
asked in UK.)
"School" for post-secondary education is usually informal, but there
are exceptions: Eg, at Ryerson University in Toronto there is a "Rotman
School of Business". It's what is usually called a faculty over here.
However, with the exception of where they're talking about a _specific_
(i. e. named) one, I don't think I've often heard an American speak of
"going to university"; equally, I don't think I've ever heard a Brit
refer to "going to college", unless perhaps when conversing with
Americans. (FWIW, here colleges are _mostly_ subdivisions of
universities - usually cross-subject, though in a few cases
subject-specific.)
Post by Wolf K
This use of "school" for "faculty" is spreading, probably because of
the increasing influence of donors, who like to see their names on
buildings and letterheads.
(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... some language may be offensive to younger viewers. Like "please" and
"thank you". (Intro to /Off Their Rockers/, quoted in RT 25-31 May 2013 by
Sarah Millican.)
NY
2018-06-30 13:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
However, with the exception of where they're talking about a _specific_
(i. e. named) one, I don't think I've often heard an American speak of
"going to university"; equally, I don't think I've ever heard a Brit refer
to "going to college", unless perhaps when conversing with Americans.
(FWIW, here colleges are _mostly_ subdivisions of universities - usually
cross-subject, though in a few cases subject-specific.)
Also, colleges as separate institutions (as opposed to part of universities
such as Oxford, Cambridge and Durham) tend to offer (or used to do when I
was at university) courses that result in lower-standard qualifications such
as HNDs (Higher National Diploma) and BTECs (Business and Technology
Education Council) as opposed to degree-level BA/BSc. They tend to be
perceived to be more vocational than theoretical. And that's great: despite
recent governments trying to encourage as many school-leavers as possible to
go to university to do degree courses, the world needs plumbers,
bricklayers, joiners, etc - better that we train our own people to do these
jobs that have to bring in people from outside the UK.

Some colleges specialise in 6th form training: taking children who have left
school with lower-level GSCE (General Certificate in Secondary Education)
and teaching them a few (usually around three) subjects for A (advanced)
levels which are the entry requirement for university. This role is normally
fulfilled by secondary schools, but some children work better in an
environment when there are no younger children.

I think another distinction is that colleges tend not to offer any
accommodation and are used by people living at home with parents and who are
therefore all local to the college, whereas universities are residential:
the students leave home and live in university halls of residence or flats
(apartments) or in privately-rented flats.


Another difference of terminology: a single subject (lectures, coursework,
exams) that is studied as part of a degree tends to be referred to in the UK
as a "subject" or a "course" rather than a "program"; the latter word is
restricted to something you watch on television (when it is spelled
programme) or a set of instructions that is run on a computer (when the US
spelling is almost invariably used).
Tim Slattery
2018-06-30 17:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In the UK, "public school" usually means the ones (mostly) attended by
the privileged - i. e. fee-paying. (The well-known ones like Eton and
Harrow, but really any fee-paying one.) I've never been sure why we call
them "public schools" - I think the argument might be that they are
_open_ to any member of the public who can afford the fees, though if
that _is_ the argument it's a weak one, since many have entrance exam.s.
IIRC, they were called "public" in contrast to the schools run by the
church. But I didn't search for confirmation.
I don't think so. My understanding is that back in medieval times, the
quality hired tutors to teach their offspring, there were no such
things as schools to send them to. The "Public Schools", then, were
institutions that anybody could send their kids to, as opposed to
private, in-home education. But it wasn't free (government supported).
That's what a public school is in the US: a government supported
school that does not charge tuition.
--
Tim Slattery
tim <at> risingdove <dot> com
NY
2018-06-30 21:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Slattery
Post by Wolf K
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In the UK, "public school" usually means the ones (mostly) attended by
the privileged - i. e. fee-paying. (The well-known ones like Eton and
Harrow, but really any fee-paying one.) I've never been sure why we call
them "public schools" - I think the argument might be that they are
_open_ to any member of the public who can afford the fees, though if
that _is_ the argument it's a weak one, since many have entrance exam.s.
IIRC, they were called "public" in contrast to the schools run by the
church. But I didn't search for confirmation.
I don't think so. My understanding is that back in medieval times, the
quality hired tutors to teach their offspring, there were no such
things as schools to send them to. The "Public Schools", then, were
institutions that anybody could send their kids to, as opposed to
private, in-home education. But it wasn't free (government supported).
That's what a public school is in the US: a government supported
school that does not charge tuition.
This terminology makes a lot more sense than in the UK where we have both
"public" and "private" schools which are very similar: fee-paying (*)
schools which are not paid for by "the State" (ie the government, from
taxes).

The school that I went to was founded in the early 1800s "for the board and
education of the sons of Nonconformist clergy" though widened its intake to
include any boys whose parents could pay the fees, no matter what their
religious beliefs (if any). When I was there in the 1970s it still had a
"visiting chaplain" from the United Reformed Church which was referred to as
Zion, but apart from that, and the statutory Religious Education lesson that
all schools are required to teach every week, the religious influence was
fairly non-existent.

Some public schools, like Ampleforth College, have much greater religious
input, to the extent that some of the teaching is done by monks and a
"Benedictine ethos permeates pupils' experience".

(*) Apart from those exception children who are granted a bursary or
scholarship, often paid for by a benefactor who long ago invested money
whose interest would pay the fees of an exceptional pupil.
Mark Lloyd
2018-06-29 17:55:15 UTC
Permalink
On 06/29/2018 12:53 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[snip]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
What I think is called a public school, or the public school system, in
the USA, is called a state school, or other terms, in the UK.
I once heard of a "state school" in the US. I think it was a special
school for the mentally retarded.

[snip]
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." -- Robert
G. Ingersoll
Mark Lloyd
2018-06-29 17:49:15 UTC
Permalink
On 06/28/2018 05:40 PM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]
Post by Char Jackson
"Can I get a cup of coffee" - you're asking the server to make a medical
diagnosis as to whether you'd be physically able to do it. The literal
answer is probably yes, seeing as how you were able to push the door
open, walk in, make your way to a table and sit down. The server will
automatically translate the question into one that makes more sense. :)
One thing I object to is when people mix up "one is not" with "not one
is" (or similar).

I have 2 US coins worth a total of 30 cents. One is not a nickel. What
are they?

A quarter and a nickel.

That answer fits the stated rule ("one is not a nickel" doesn't say
anything about the other). It doesn't fit the "translation" (not one is
a nickel).

"all cars are not blue" is wrong (you prove it any time you see a blue
car). it should have been "not all cars are blue" or "some cars are not
blue" or "only some cars are blue".

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." -- Robert
G. Ingersoll
NY
2018-06-29 08:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
The ultimate teeth-on-edge usage is when someone asks a waiter "can I get
a cup of coffee" - meaning "will *you* get *me* a cup of coffee". "Can I
get" suggests that I want to go to the machine and get myself a cup,
which is not what you are asking the waiter.
I would say the sentence should be "may I get a cup of coffee" if that was
the intent, as I know I can, but may I? That's a teeth-on-edge thing for
me, the can/may and their/there/they're issue. I stop or I'll go on for
pages. :-)
Yes I was ignoring the dreaded can/may problem. I almost take that as given,
these days, along with the illogical "I could care less" instead of "I
couldn't care less" (the latter implying that I care so little that I could
not reduce my level of care to a lower value; the former means - well, not a
lot!
Wolf K
2018-06-28 18:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
  In the US there's little appreciation for the art
of language. Like everything else, it's an athletic
competition, with points being awarded for swagger
and fashion, yo.
America is great for coming up with new usages and phrases which we in
the UK condemn as "too American", and then a few decades later we start
to adopt as if we'd invented them :-)
However the one word that still grates on my ears, several decades after
I first heard it, is the business buzzword "leverage", as in "we will
grow (*) our business in order to leverage an increase in market
penetration". OK, I made that one up! I don't know whether it means
anything because I've never known *precisely* what "leverage" means. And
anyway, in the UK we pronounce the noun "leever" rather than "levver",
so it would be "levverage" :-)
It means "We're gonna try to sell more stuff."

[...]
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
What you choose to do with your body will, inevitably, have
psychological consequences.
Mayayana
2018-06-28 20:54:20 UTC
Permalink
"NY" <***@privacy.net> wrote
| However the one word that still grates on my ears, several decades after I
| first heard it, is the business buzzword "leverage", as in "we will grow
(*)
| our business in order to leverage an increase in market penetration". OK,
I
| made that one up! I don't know whether it means anything because I've
never
| known *precisely* what "leverage" means. And anyway, in the UK we
pronounce
| the noun "leever" rather than "levver", so it would be "levverage" :-)
|

I think that kind of thing is getting worse because
a lot of effort is going into calculating language for
effect. White collar people often have jargon for their
particular trade and also jargon to make them sound
intelligent or dynamic or both.

Microsoft uses leverage a lot: "Leveraging solutions
across the enterprise". Which means make use of
software in business. My understanding of that is
that leverage, in that case, means the same thing
as using a stick to lift a heavy load; accomplishing
more with what you've got.

Software is not a solution, of course, until it solves
a problem. But the Microsofties like to grant it that
status beforehand. In fact, at some point they switched
from calling software projects in Visual Studio "projects"
and started calling them solutions. They don't even
exist as usable software yet, but they're already
solutions.

Personally I think that use of leverage is a case of
wanting to seem dynamic. Impact is similar. As in,
"that movie was so impactful I cried". Normally people
would probably say they were affected by the movie.
But that's qualitative. It can't be measured by science.

It's all a way of rendering experience in terms that
could almost be measured using physics equations:
leverage and impact. And of course the psycho-babble
"community" are only too happy to assure us that yes,
indeed, with the new dynamic MRIs we can measure
impaction scientifically. :)

But it seems to be more extreme with tech people,
who tend to lack a sense of poetry. They get used
to thinking in concrete terms. 1+1 always equals 2.
There's no qualitative aspect. No texture. No irony.
No ambiguity. I notice that in myself when I do
a lot of programming. Artfulness dissipates.

Experience is another interesting word. Microsoft
have adopted that in their marketing. They talk about
their products providing experiences, as though
experience itself were a measurable, buyable consumer
product.

I find the most extreme language aggression comes
from what I think of as liberal fascists. The politically
correct people who insist that everyone follow their
way. The left-wing equivalent of the Trumpian redneck.

For example, "cisgender", which means male or
female. Or rather, it means a man or woman who
actually believes themselves to be a man or woman,
and not some creative gender hybrid.

There's a lot of talk lately about non-binary
gender, which of course is a contradiction. But these
people assert their view that gender should be a
lifestyle freedom by denying that it has real existence;
asserting that it's merely a social device.

Thus, cisgender, or someone believing themselves
to be the gender that they are, defines one category
of gender and thereby creates endless new categories.
Cisgender implies the existence of transgender, bi,
hermaphroditic, or the gender of the week, as all
being equal *choices*.
Apd
2018-06-28 21:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
America is great for coming up with new usages and phrases which we in the
UK condemn as "too American", and then a few decades later we start to adopt
as if we'd invented them :-)
Or spelling which we (UK) think of as American but in many cases has
origins in English/Latin/French and where both forms were used (e.g.
by Shakespeare) before the UK and US standardised (standardized) on
their own particular preferences.
Post by NY
However the one word that still grates on my ears, several decades after I
first heard it, is the business buzzword "leverage"
"We must develop knowledge optimization initiatives to leverage our
key learnings".

http://dilbert.com/strip/1998-11-26

You can add to that my bugbear: "going forward". Well, where else is
your business going - backwards, sideways?
Char Jackson
2018-06-28 22:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Apd
Post by NY
America is great for coming up with new usages and phrases which we in the
UK condemn as "too American", and then a few decades later we start to adopt
as if we'd invented them :-)
Or spelling which we (UK) think of as American but in many cases has
origins in English/Latin/French and where both forms were used (e.g.
by Shakespeare) before the UK and US standardised (standardized) on
their own particular preferences.
Post by NY
However the one word that still grates on my ears, several decades after I
first heard it, is the business buzzword "leverage"
"We must develop knowledge optimization initiatives to leverage our
key learnings".
http://dilbert.com/strip/1998-11-26
You can add to that my bugbear: "going forward". Well, where else is
your business going - backwards, sideways?
In addition to all of the above, I'll add any sentence that begins with,
"At the end of the day..."
--
Char Jackson
NY
2018-06-29 08:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Apd
Post by NY
America is great for coming up with new usages and phrases which we in the
UK condemn as "too American", and then a few decades later we start to adopt
as if we'd invented them :-)
Or spelling which we (UK) think of as American but in many cases has
origins in English/Latin/French and where both forms were used (e.g.
by Shakespeare) before the UK and US standardised (standardized) on
their own particular preferences.
I'm fairly relaxed about UK versus US spelling. The U in colour, humour etc,
has no purpose and could be removed; likewise it is perverse that we reverse
the R and E in theatre. But since that's what British spelling rules say,
then I will fight to the death to spell the words that way :-)

Cheque/check is an interesting one. British spelling allows a clear written
distinction between the piece of paper which is an authorisation to pay
money, and the crosshatch pattern on clothing or the verification of the
state of something; American spelling doesn't. When corresponding with
Americans, it's easier to spelling it "check" to avoid any hassle with "what
does this word cheque mean?".
Mayayana
2018-06-29 12:19:17 UTC
Permalink
"NY" <***@privacy.net> wrote

| I'm fairly relaxed about UK versus US spelling. The U in colour, humour
etc,
| has no purpose and could be removed; likewise it is perverse that we
reverse
| the R and E in theatre. But since that's what British spelling rules say,
| then I will fight to the death to spell the words that way :-)
|

And don't forget aluminium. It's much more
fun than our aluminum. Aluminium feels like
a long, hilly sleigh ride, what? :)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-06-30 13:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| I'm fairly relaxed about UK versus US spelling. The U in colour, humour
etc,
| has no purpose and could be removed; likewise it is perverse that we
The pronunciation varies too: in England, "culluh", in US "coll'r"
(which to UK ears sounds like collar, i. e. neckpiece). Though to be
inconsistent, the first 0 isn't always uh - we pronounce hono[u]r as
onner (US arn'r).
Post by Mayayana
reverse
| the R and E in theatre. But since that's what British spelling rules say,
The -re/-er endings derive from the higher proportions of French/German
in the heritages, I think. Though I've never understood the origin of
the US voiced embedded T (water is pronounced warder, writer as rider,
Italy ad Iddly, title as tidal, and so on); it's not an inability to
pronounce an unvoiced T - that comes out fine if at the beginning of a
word (title gets two different Ts in US).
Post by Mayayana
| then I will fight to the death to spell the words that way :-)
|
And don't forget aluminium. It's much more
fun than our aluminum. Aluminium feels like
a long, hilly sleigh ride, what? :)
Yes, it's odd. We in UK do have non-i words - laudanum, lanthanum; but
both sides have helium, or even a metal, chromium.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Usenet is a way of being annoyed by people you otherwise never would have met."
- John J. Kinyon
Mayayana
2018-06-30 14:58:09 UTC
Permalink
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote

| The pronunciation varies too: in England, "culluh", in US "coll'r"

I pronounce it culluh. The further west you go, the
more the R appears, until at the West Coast they
seem to be almost obsessed with it: cullurrh. Coll'r might
be used in parts of the South, but I'm not familiar with it.

| Though I've never understood the origin of
| the US voiced embedded T (water is pronounced warder, writer as rider,
| Italy ad Iddly, title as tidal, and so on); it's not an inability to
| pronounce an unvoiced T - that comes out fine if at the beginning of a
| word (title gets two different Ts in US).
|
Maybe it has to do with being less forceful? Dramatic
pronunciation is cultivated in Britain. Consonants are
often relished for their explosive potential. Pronouncing
Ts your way requires that explosive quality. The word
can't flow.
A kitten named Mittens from Britain. A Brit needs
to step through each syllable. If I say it the K and
Ns are the only consonants. My tongue never goes
to the roof of the mouth on the Ts. The accent
serves to suggest the T: KI-n name[d] MI-ns

My very elderly father pronounces Saturday as
sad-dee. I pronounce it as sad-[uh]-day, with the
uh barely being a throat sound. I can't guess where
he came up with such crazy speech. :)

Recently I've noticed it's common for people
to say student as stu-dent, with the D and 2 Ts
all stressed. That sounds strange to me. I say
stu-[d]nt. The tongue is just slightly further
forward than it would be for "stoont". Again, the
accent on the first syllable serves to suggest the D.

In general, pronunciation becomes sharper as
it goes west, but even the West Coasters tend
to linger on consonants. It's not done forcefully.
I'd say it's done it dorkily, but I might have a bias.
NY
2018-06-30 16:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mayayana
And don't forget aluminium. It's much more
fun than our aluminum. Aluminium feels like
a long, hilly sleigh ride, what? :)
Yes, it's odd. We in UK do have non-i words - laudanum, lanthanum; but
both sides have helium, or even a metal, chromium.
Wikipedia talks about the derivation of the name for the element:

"British chemist Humphry Davy, who performed a number of experiments aimed
to synthesize the metal, is credited as the person who named aluminium. In
1808, he suggested the metal be named alumium. This suggestion was
criticized by contemporary chemists from France, Germany, and Sweden, who
insisted the metal should be named for the oxide, alumina, from which it
would be isolated. In 1812, Davy chose aluminum, thus producing the modern
name. However, it is spelled and pronounced differently outside of North
America: aluminum is in use in the U.S. and Canada while aluminium is in use
elsewhere."

So after Davy had made his first proposal, with no N in it, and his
colleagues had made the very sensible suggestion that the element should
have a name that was more similar to the ore alumina, it seems that the
original name was aluminum (the American spelling) and then the spelling
vacillated between -um and -ium: I hadn't realised that even in the US
the -ium spelling was once used, until Noah Webster became involved.

But I see that the official IUPAC spelling is -ium, with -um regarded as an
acceptable variant. OK, we won that argument, but we lost the sulphur/sulfur
one :-)
Mark Lloyd
2018-06-29 17:36:22 UTC
Permalink
On 06/28/2018 04:19 PM, Apd wrote:

[snip]
Post by Apd
"We must develop knowledge optimization initiatives to leverage our
key learnings".
Once I heard "That sentence should be taken outside and shot.".
Post by Apd
http://dilbert.com/strip/1998-11-26
You can add to that my bugbear: "going forward". Well, where else is
your business going - backwards, sideways?
what I thought of when I heard that was "The red queen's race". You
figure it out.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." -- Robert
G. Ingersoll
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-06-27 00:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Slootweg
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by Wolf K
Post by SC Tom
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
snip<
I'm rather surprised they're using that, as it's a common scammer
practice to use hostnames that comprise a well-known name such as
Microsoft but with extra characters; if I _had_ received such, I
would have assumed it was a scam anyway.
(Note use of "comprise" without a following "of".)
That's because of the sentence structure :-) It would have been
acceptable to say ". . . practice to use hostnames comprised of a
well-known name such as . . .".
Avoid the passive voice.
Post by SC Tom
Although it may have to have a choice of more than one name to use
"comprised of", such as ". . . Microsoft or Apple, but . . .", or ".
. . practice to use hostnames comprised of well-known names such as
Microsoft or Apple, but . . .". Not sure any more; been way too long
since I had English Grammar, LOL!!
In the UK here "comprised of" is fine; it's synonymous with "consists of".
I'm in UK, and NO IT ISN'T! Well, I suppose it is with language change -
and I suspect (what I think of as) the wrong form - i. e. with "of" -
may even be commoner than the correct form (i. e. without), nowadays. To
me, "comprise" and "comprises" should _never_ be followed by "of". If
you feel an overwhelming urge to use "of", then use "consist(s)";
"consists of" _is_ synonymous with "comprises" (_without_ "of").
Well, '_never_' is a bit strong, but indeed Collins English Dictionary
"The use of of after comprise should be avoided: the library comprises
(not comprises of) 500 000 books and manuscripts"
And indeed Random House Dictionary (i.e. US English) is somewhat more
"Comprise has had an interesting history of sense development. In
addition to its original senses, dating from the 15th century, to
include and to consist of ( The United States of America comprises 50
states ), comprise has had since the late 18th century the meaning to
form or constitute ( Fifty states comprise the United States of
Nice examples. Note there is no "of" after "comprise(s)" either way
round in those.
Post by Frank Slootweg
America). Since the late 19th century it has also been used in passive
constructions with a sense synonymous with that of one of its original
meanings to consist of, be composed of: The United States of America is
comprised of 50 states. These later uses are often criticized, but they
occur with increasing frequency even in formal speech and writing."
Yes, they're common enough now that the usage probably counts as
correct. (Another fine distinction lost.)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.
VanguardLH
2018-06-26 01:13:53 UTC
Permalink
but the email does not address me by my regular name just by my first
name initial. Sounds like some phishing scam, so I don't click on its
hot area. Has any of you got it, too?
Oh, an e-mail but no evidence of what is shown in the Received, Sender,
and other headers of the e-mail and no showing what is *in* the HTML
code, like for the <A> tag of the hyperlink that claims to be pointing
at Microsoft. You want others to diagnose an e-mail for which you give
nothing to diagnose.

View the source of the e-mail. Copy that source which will show headers
and the body of the message. Munge out any personal information, like
your username in your e-mail address (but not the domain since that is
public information, anyway). Do NOT show the rendered HTML for the
e-mail as that can be manipulated to lie about where a hyperlink
actually points. Show the source of the e-mail which will show to where
the <A> anchor tag points in its href attribute. The Received and other
headers will indicate from where an e-mail originates. The *code* for
an HTML rendered hyperlink is the only way to know to where a hyperlink
points (unless your client pops up an *accurate* description of a
hyperlink, but many clients do not and show something other than what is
really specified in the href attribute).

Bulk mails rarely address you by your specific name unless they are
mailmerged mailings. Mailmerge takes more time to modify the content of
a template to use as the body of a personalized e-mail. The recipient
is already specified but merging that into the body takes time. Whether
or not it is a legitimate e-mail from Microsoft or a phish requires
seeing what is actually specified in the headers and to where the
hyperlinks actually point for the effective URL (not what gets shown in
rendered HTML). Not all bulk mailings are personalized; i.e., the same
message gets sent to multiple recipients instead of a personalized
template sent to each recipient.

That I don't get e-mails from Microsoft Rewards doesn't mean Microsoft
doesn't operate a rewards program. I don't buy anything from
Microsoft's store, so I would have no rewards from them. We don't know
what past relationships you've had with Microsoft that might qualify you
for participation in their rewards program.

https://rewards.microsoft.com/
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/microsoft-rewards
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/20540/microsoft-account-earning-rewards-points
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/20541/microsoft-account-redeeming-rewards-points

If you want others to diagnose an e-mail to determine it legit or phish,
you'll have to provide evidence: the source of the e-mail but with
sensitive data munged out or obfuscated.
Mayayana
2018-06-26 03:26:59 UTC
Permalink
"cameo" <***@unreal.invalid> wrote

| ***@email.microsoftrewards.com,

Interesting review of the whole thing here:

https://workfromhomejourney.com/is-microsoft-rewards-worth-it-a-detailed-review

Apparently it's been going on for years, but recently
it's been combined with XBox rewards, whatever that is.
They're basically paying people to use their products
(Bing/Edge) and to buy MS Store apps. But the catch is
that they don't pay much of anything worth having.
Ed Cryer
2018-06-26 12:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
https://workfromhomejourney.com/is-microsoft-rewards-worth-it-a-detailed-review
Apparently it's been going on for years, but recently
it's been combined with XBox rewards, whatever that is.
They're basically paying people to use their products
(Bing/Edge) and to buy MS Store apps. But the catch is
that they don't pay much of anything worth having.
The crucial words are "Microsoft Rewards basically pays you to browse
the web with Bing. You can use any browser that uses the Bing search
engine".

The more people use Bing, the more ads get viewed. The more people use
Bing, the more Bing's status rises together with its power to attract
advertisers; paying advertisers, that is".

Ed
Mayayana
2018-06-26 12:56:59 UTC
Permalink
"Ed Cryer" <***@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote

| The crucial words are "Microsoft Rewards basically pays you to browse
| the web with Bing. You can use any browser that uses the Bing search
| engine".
|
| The more people use Bing, the more ads get viewed. The more people use
| Bing, the more Bing's status rises together with its power to attract
| advertisers; paying advertisers, that is".
|

If you read down you'll see that using Bing is just
the first thing listed. Using Edge also qualifies you to
be awarded nothing in particular. As does shopping
at the MS Store. The idea seems to be not only
showing ads and making money. The primary motive
seems to be creating a loyalty system; getting
people to stay with MS products in whatever they do.

That's basically the Win10 plan as well. And it's
been the basis of their advertising for some years
now, presenting the Tile City GUI as being what you'll
want to use in all situations -- with computer, tablet,
or phone. Microsoft, somewhat comically, is trying to
sell a superior lifestyle by claiming that their products
will provide superior "experiences". Their use of that
word is peculiar, clearly defining an experience as
a retail consumer product that can be rated in terms
of quality.

(Of course, their phone is kaput, their tablets are
crazy overpriced, and win10 is busy installing
updates. But that hasn't swayed them from their
plan. They can afford to keep screwing it up
because they're doing very well with corporate
web services.)

There was another site that said using Edge requires
one to actively use it, which implies that Win10,
Edge, or something is calling home to report when,
and for how long, Edge is the active window. So that's
another interesting twist. Like drug store loyalty cards,
getting some kind of kickback requires giving up a
lot of salable, personal data.

Considering that people can get 1-2% back just for
using a charge card, it's hard to see how anyone
would go out of their way to log into Microsoft and
use only MS products, just to maybe get a discount
on a Starbucks latte after a couple of months.

(That would also be the ultimate in ninny-brained
frugality: Spending $5 for a cup of kiddie coffee while
spending weeks of effort to "earn" a few fractions of
a cent.)
Big Al
2018-06-26 13:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| The crucial words are "Microsoft Rewards basically pays you to browse
| the web with Bing. You can use any browser that uses the Bing search
| engine".
|
| The more people use Bing, the more ads get viewed. The more people use
| Bing, the more Bing's status rises together with its power to attract
| advertisers; paying advertisers, that is".
|
If you read down you'll see that using Bing is just
the first thing listed. Using Edge also qualifies you to
be awarded nothing in particular. As does shopping
at the MS Store. The idea seems to be not only
showing ads and making money. The primary motive
seems to be creating a loyalty system; getting
people to stay with MS products in whatever they do.
That's basically the Win10 plan as well. And it's
been the basis of their advertising for some years
now, presenting the Tile City GUI as being what you'll
want to use in all situations -- with computer, tablet,
or phone. Microsoft, somewhat comically, is trying to
sell a superior lifestyle by claiming that their products
will provide superior "experiences". Their use of that
word is peculiar, clearly defining an experience as
a retail consumer product that can be rated in terms
of quality.
(Of course, their phone is kaput, their tablets are
crazy overpriced, and win10 is busy installing
updates. But that hasn't swayed them from their
plan. They can afford to keep screwing it up
because they're doing very well with corporate
web services.)
There was another site that said using Edge requires
one to actively use it, which implies that Win10,
Edge, or something is calling home to report when,
and for how long, Edge is the active window. So that's
another interesting twist. Like drug store loyalty cards,
getting some kind of kickback requires giving up a
lot of salable, personal data.
Considering that people can get 1-2% back just for
using a charge card, it's hard to see how anyone
would go out of their way to log into Microsoft and
use only MS products, just to maybe get a discount
on a Starbucks latte after a couple of months.
(That would also be the ultimate in ninny-brained
frugality: Spending $5 for a cup of kiddie coffee while
spending weeks of effort to "earn" a few fractions of
a cent.)
I started that rewards program and when I hit about 5,000 points I
though...wow, here come the rewards. NO!. I did spend some on the
chance of give aways to no avail of course. I gave up after a while,
haven't tried for a year now. I'm on Linux so I can't use Edge. The
quizzes and edge searches was my main points source.

The same was with Coke rewards program except at least I bought 2 free
tee shirts (granted they had the Coke logo and that's free advertising
to them), and one gift card, and one set of photos from shutterfly.

They just don't reward ME that much. Maybe some other people but not me!
Ed Cryer
2018-06-26 14:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mayayana
| The crucial words are "Microsoft Rewards basically pays you to browse
| the web with Bing. You can use any browser that uses the Bing search
| engine".
|
| The more people use Bing, the more ads get viewed. The more people use
| Bing, the more Bing's status rises together with its power to attract
| advertisers; paying advertisers, that is".
|
If you read down you'll see that using Bing is just
the first thing listed. Using Edge also qualifies you to
be awarded nothing in particular. As does shopping
at the MS Store. The idea seems to be not only
showing ads and making money. The primary motive
seems to be creating a loyalty system; getting
people to stay with MS products in whatever they do.
That's basically the Win10 plan as well. And it's
been the basis of their advertising for some years
now, presenting the Tile City GUI as being what you'll
want to use in all situations -- with computer, tablet,
or phone. Microsoft, somewhat comically, is trying to
sell a superior lifestyle by claiming that their products
will provide superior "experiences". Their use of that
word is peculiar, clearly defining an experience as
a retail consumer product that can be rated in terms
of quality.
(Of course, their phone is kaput, their tablets are
crazy overpriced, and win10 is busy installing
updates. But that hasn't swayed them from their
plan. They can afford to keep screwing it up
because they're doing very well with corporate
web services.)
There was another site that said using Edge requires
one to actively use it, which implies that Win10,
Edge, or something is calling home to report when,
and for how long, Edge is the active window. So that's
another interesting twist. Like drug store loyalty cards,
getting some kind of kickback requires giving up a
lot of salable, personal data.
Considering that people can get 1-2% back just for
using a charge card, it's hard to see how anyone
would go out of their way to log into Microsoft and
use only MS products, just to maybe get a discount
on a Starbucks latte after a couple of months.
(That would also be the ultimate in ninny-brained
frugality: Spending $5 for a cup of kiddie coffee while
spending weeks of effort to "earn" a few fractions of
a cent.)
There used to be an advertising slogan for Carlsberg lager; "Probably
the best lager in the world".
When I was a student we used to raise our glasses of Kronenbourg lager
in the student bar and chant "Kronenbourg, possibly, maybe and could
well be the second-best lager around these parts".

Are they still allowed to do it? Use value terms that can't be
quantified (and thus not disproved)?

Ed
Mayayana
2018-06-26 14:57:35 UTC
Permalink
"Ed Cryer" <***@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote

| There used to be an advertising slogan for Carlsberg lager; "Probably
| the best lager in the world".
| When I was a student we used to raise our glasses of Kronenbourg lager
| in the student bar and chant "Kronenbourg, possibly, maybe and could
| well be the second-best lager around these parts".
|
| Are they still allowed to do it? Use value terms that can't be
| quantified (and thus not disproved)?
|

The Carlsberg one is clever. I don't think I've ever
seen an ad like that.

I don't think I've ever seen actual claims in the US,
except those quoting some kind of survey. ("4 out
of 5 dentists agree....". But we don't actually know
what the survey was. Were 4 of the dentists someone's
brother in law? Was it a trick question?)

But qualifiers with no context are ubiquitous, comparing
a product to either itself or an undefined other:

"Better flavor without the bitter aftertaste"

Better than what? What bitter aftertaste? That's
up to you to fill in and thus not legally their claim.

"Now with 20% more whitening power"

What does that mean? I assume it means
something, to satisfy the lawyers. But not
something meaningful. Maybe it's toothpaste
that used to have .5 grams of hydrogen
peroxide per tube and now it has .6 grams.
It has no whitening effect but does, technically
have 20% more whitening "power".

But I would point out that this post is a new
and improved version of what I normally write. :)
Mark Lloyd
2018-06-26 17:16:42 UTC
Permalink
On 06/26/2018 09:57 AM, Mayayana wrote:

[snip]
Post by Mayayana
I don't think I've ever seen actual claims in the US,
except those quoting some kind of survey. ("4 out
of 5 dentists agree....". But we don't actually know
I seem to remember "4 out of 5 dentists WHO RECOMMEND GUM agree....".
Any dentist who doesn't recommend gum is not part of their statistics.

[snip]

I also remember an impossible one. An ad for energy efficient light
bulbs that claimed "uses 200% less electricity". Consider that 100% less
would mean it doesn't use any electricity at all.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now."
VanguardLH
2018-06-27 02:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by cameo
I keep getting this email from
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds like
some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any of you got
it, too?
If you no longer want to get those e-mails, you can unsubscribe from
them. Login and see if the following URL works:

https://account.microsoft.com/profile/communications

Else, somewhere in your account should be communication preference
settings where you can opt out of all of their superfluous messages.
cameo
2018-06-27 17:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by VanguardLH
Post by cameo
I keep getting this email from
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds like
some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any of you got
it, too?
If you no longer want to get those e-mails, you can unsubscribe from
https://account.microsoft.com/profile/communications
Else, somewhere in your account should be communication preference
settings where you can opt out of all of their superfluous messages.
Not a problem after seeing that it is not really a scam. But thanks for
the tip nevertheless.
Mr. Man-wai Chang
2018-06-28 16:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by cameo
I keep getting this email from
address me by my regular name just by my first name initial. Sounds like
some phishing scam, so I don't click on its hot area. Has any of you got
it, too?
Call Micro$oft to confirm! ;)
--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不賭錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
Loading...