mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: alibey1917
About
User Name: alibey1917
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: Male
Statistics
Joined: Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Last Visit: Monday, May 17, 2021 6:02:37 AM
Number of Posts: 414
[0.04% of all post / 0.43 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: at least some
Posted: Monday, May 17, 2021 3:07:15 AM
Thank you, Sureshot and Wilmar (USA) 1M, I got it.
Topic: at least some
Posted: Sunday, May 16, 2021 6:49:55 AM
In this interim period, the more fortunate in the job market were those who made their living as carpenters in the winter months. Tobacco merchants hired at least some of them to fix the broken doors and windows and do other repair work in the warehouses." ((Can Nacar, Labor and Power in the Late Ottoman Empire)

Can the phrase "at least some" mean "maybe all of them" here?

Topic: A meaning question
Posted: Sunday, April 25, 2021 12:50:16 PM
FounDit wrote:
alibey1917 wrote:
"Beyond the racist, nationalist, and public health impulses associated with the closure of national boundaries, the interest in decentralized nations reflects the ways people are looking for exit from systems they perceive to be failing them." (Ethan Zuckerman, Mistrust: Why Losing Faith In Institutions Provides the Tools to Transform Them)

What does this sentence say exactly?


It is saying that people who want closed national boundaries are racist, nationalist, and concerned with public health issues. For those who are interested in doing away with national boundaries (decentralized nations), those people are looking to escape systems they believe are failing them.


Thanks a lot, FounDit, I got it.
Topic: A meaning question
Posted: Sunday, April 25, 2021 12:27:26 PM
"Beyond the racist, nationalist, and public health impulses associated with the closure of national boundaries, the interest in decentralized nations reflects the ways people are looking for exit from systems they perceive to be failing them." (Ethan Zuckerman, Mistrust: Why Losing Faith In Institutions Provides the Tools to Transform Them)

What does this sentence say exactly?
Topic: reckoning
Posted: Saturday, April 10, 2021 7:02:35 AM
thar wrote:
Reckoning is calculating, adding up, but here I think "analysing, looking at yourself".

He wanted that done as a nation - everyone, not just a report from the department of labour or whatever.

During WW2 Britain did this, and came out with a welfare state, a national health service free education, everything down to a new safer design of electric plugs - a truly national review and action. Just even a part of that is what should have happened after Katrina, in his opinion, and didn't. Nothing changed.

[Smacks too much of socialism, to help the poor. Next thing you know we'll all be reds!]


Another non-standard use of words? A reckoning is usually a consequence, judgement. But that doesn't fit here.

Quote:
reckoning
/ˈrɛk(ə)nɪŋ/
noun
1.
the action or process of calculating or estimating something.
"the sixth, or by another reckoning eleventh, Earl of Mar"
Similar:
calculation
estimation

2.
the avenging or punishing of past mistakes or misdeeds.
"the fear of being brought to reckoning"




Thank you, thar, I got it.
Topic: reckoning
Posted: Saturday, April 10, 2021 6:16:16 AM
"Katrina demanded that America take a close look at its gravest weaknesses and make real, lasting change in how we support the poor, the sick, and the elderly. That national reckoning did not occur, and it’s not clear that the Obama or Trump administration would have handled the crisis any better." (Ethan Zuckerman, Mistrust: Why Losing Faith In Institutions Provides the Tools to Transform Them)

What does "That national reckoning did not occur" mean?
Topic: uncovered
Posted: Monday, April 5, 2021 12:39:31 PM
thar wrote:
No, I think he means 'not covered'.



Tunisian media did not cover the protests. State control, presumably.

The way the news got around was through videos uploaded to facebook and then through the foreign media outlet Al Jazeera, which could be watched in Tunisia. Without that, the Tunisians would have been unaware of it happening. There was nothing on the Tunisian media about it - a complete government cover-up, news blackout.

'went uncovered' would have been OK. That would mean the protests took place but the media did not cover them.

But 'were uncovered' means they were discovered, unearthed. To uncover something is a positive action.


This guy is just a lousy writer, has to be my conclusion! Lousy user of language in general, presumably. (I know, maybe someone will again tell me this is how you use it in American English. Maybe.)


Thank you, thar.
Topic: uncovered
Posted: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:38:52 AM
"In a similar way, television and social media helped launch the Arab Spring. Activists in Sidi Bouzid used Facebook video to document their protests, which were uncovered by Tunisian media outlets. Tunisian activists in Europe then packaged the video and brought it to Al Jazeera, which broadcast it on its Arabic- language service, reaching an audience in Tunis who were otherwise unaware of the protests occurring only two hundred kilometers away." (Ethan Zuckerman, Mistrust: Why Losing Faith In Institutions Provides the Tools to Transform Them)

I think the word uncovered" is a misprint for "covered", am I wrong?
Topic: idealistic
Posted: Monday, April 5, 2021 1:38:23 AM
thar wrote:
Good - I didn't point out explicitly the difference between

democratic = of that system, representative of the people

and

Democratic = of the Democratic party in the US. ie a one-party system in effect, with the Republican party or independents never holding power.


To point out the difference it was enough to capitalize the "d" of "democratic" and you had done that. Thank you, again.
Topic: idealistic
Posted: Sunday, April 4, 2021 12:31:25 PM
thar wrote:
There are two explanations why you might have non-partisan elections

1 hold nonpartisan elections, hoping to increase cooperation among city leaders across political differences.
there are political differences, but in the spirit of true democracy and cooperation, you don't begrime it with party politics. Just individuals from across the political spectrum who all want to do what is best for the city. That is the idealistic view - the way it should be, in an ideal world


2 most American cities are Democratic strongholds and have no meaningful partisan challengers."

This is the less idealistic explanation. It doesn't happen because diversity and democracy are thriving. It only happens because there is only one party that has any chance. In that situation, you can have challenges between members of that party. That is not good democracy, it is lack of meaningful diversity and choice. A one-party system, which is the antithesis of real representation.


Thank you, thar, I got it.