Perhaps I was very busy, that day and the next.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I think that is a sign of how good your phone is. So realistic

@Cerberus wait...your religious parties aren't in the far right?

@Mitch One is; the other two are mainstream and leftish.

The far right is mostly irreligious, like all "sides".

Sorry, I was afk. So yeah... my phone just poof died.

I now have a new phone

How terrible!

How great!

Is it the 1+1 3?

yeah. I was thinking, "What bad luck for it to die", but then I thought "I am lucky enough that that's my biggest problem right now and I can afford a new one"

Yay!

@Cerberus that's terrible math. 1+1 makes 2.

Which one?

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I know, I hate it too.

you have two more guesses

And I knew you were going to say that.

you should know me well enough by now

Is it the latest, most expensive Google phone?

close!

does

Hmm.

it's the 128GB Pixel

And a more expensive phone would be...

so, not the most expensive, which is the 128 GB Pixel XL

But congratulations.

Ah.

@KitZ.Fox For real? I had heard that even Dan Brown was a better writer

but not E.L. James

How's the camera?

Is it substantially better in low light than the 5X?

@Færd similarly I've heard that because the party in power still is held back by the opposition party, the party in power can actually be more successful at getting pro-opposition laws passed (in the US, welfare reform by Clinton, by peace with China by Nixon)

More successful than in what other situation?

@Cerberus In the US, the 'evangelical christians' notoriously support the far right on most issues even things you'd expect are not particularly christian like removing supports for the poor

Mm I don't know whether I would consider welfare Christian.

But either way, I'm still not sure I get your point.

@Cerberus haven't used it yet

I'm still installing apps in between code builds while I'm at work

@Mitch Or nuclear warfare. I thought Christianity was all about peace and love.

@terdon There are bible passages to support any point of view.

True dat.

@Cerberus I realize that was dense. eg the rights are in power, so you'd think they'd get all sort of rightist things approved like more money for killing things for the army. But there will be opposition to that (by he weaker opposition). But the rights can actually get real progress on left issues (that are palatable to the right), like those examples.

'S a big book, after all. With many authors.

and vice versa

@Mitch But with what other situation are you comparing it? If, indeed, there is a law that both sides want, then of course it can be passed when one side is in power.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 OT tends to be paternalistic, authoritarian, vengeful. NT gospels tend to be 'turn the other cheek','wash the feet of the maid', be nice, NT Letters (mostly Paul) tend to be really uptight about sex

@Cerberus Welfare fits the Christian ethos better than the libertarian or militarist ethos

It certainly is in some of their books.

But "Christian" is rather more comprehensive than "libertarian" or "militarist".

@Mitch yeah but even Jesus says things about swords sometimes.

You could also put "military spending" under "Christian" if you wanted.

I would associate welfare more with socialists than with Christians.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 well christ on a white horse

Many Christian organisations feel that the church should hand out welfare, not the state.

@Cerberus sorry, there's a lot of polysemy going on here. Yes, in the US at least the evangelical Christians tend to be far right. But the principles of Christ in the gospels tend to be more about helping the poor and marginalized, both of which principles seem to be also associated with the left.

@Mitch which is sooooooooooo ironic

What would happen if Christ met The Buda?

Buddha*

@skullpetrol What is the sound of one cheek turning?

:-)

nvm Google has the answer.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 whenever I hear 'evangelical christians' supporting 'some terribly intolerant or warlike thing', I always think 'That doesn't seem particularly Christian'

@Mitch Well, aren't there a great many very different principles espoused in the Bible and other religious sources?

And traditions, practices, organisations?

Who decides what is "Christian"?

@Mitch Whenever I hear that Christians are trying to make it harder to get birth control, I always wonder if maybe they secretly like abortions

@Cerberus Everyone, and noone, and that's the issue

Indeed.

It is true that many Christian organisations have involved themselves in charity.

But I don't know how to translate that into what they feel the state should do.

But why did you mention noon?

Presumably there are different logical positions they could take: 1. the state shouldn't be involved, the church takes care of it, 2. the state should do it because it has the most power, 3. the state should be a Christian state thus mooting the issue, etc

@Cerberus not noon. noone.

it's a new spelling of "no one"

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Indeed.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Why add an -e to noon?

Oh, if you meant noöne, then you should have said so!

@Cerberus noon says that

@Cerberus sure. and there are the labels people tend to apply, like Christian, or the name of a church. There's a lot of possibilities. there are individuals who consider themselves Christian and have very particular stances on issues that may or may not coincide with much larger institutions that also call themselves Christian.

Exactly.

@Mitch Grrr.

@Cerberus But the media reference to Christians, usually refers to politically active groups calling themselves Christian, and they tend to be on the right (as small special interest groups to the far-right in the US and large traditional parties on the center-right in Germany (I don't know about the Netherlands, and the French are godless communists and the English...pfft)

@Mitch True, they're almost always socially conservative, and they are often less enthusiast about welfare.

Perhaps that is because welfare is relatively new, so they don't like it?

In a more general way, I wonder why in some countries socially conservative and economically liberal are often united in one party.

That isn't really the case here, although I suppose the tendency does exist to some extent.

Perhaps more so now than 100 years ago.

@Cerberus People are weird

The liberals have always been economically liberal.

They were also quite liberal in 1900.

so only difference is social liberality?

Now, their party has become less socially liberal, but they're still very much economically liberal.

@Mitch Between what and what?

you said social cons and econ lib often go together. I presume that that is a right leaning party. since you then say that liberals or the left are econ lib too, then the only difference must be about social stuff, the right socially conservative and the left socially liberal

@Cerberus there's no ö key on my keyboard and I'm too lazy to make it happen.

@Mitch Uhh the left is not economically liberal, or what I would call the left.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 You know the answer...

@Mitch I should have capitalised Liberals, the Liberal Party, who are no longer in all respects liberal (socially).

@Cerberus if you're going to say AHK, I actually have a better answer, which is to use the "international" keyboard layout, which I have installed, configured, and know how to use, but am too lazy to use.

I am!

Autohotkey is so easy to use, you couldn't have been too lazy.

First I'd have to install AHK

You'd have to be unlazy during installation.

But not at the moment of typing.

ö

Now you're too lazy when you're typing; with Autohotkey installed, it would be so easy that you wouldn't be.

Well done!

séë? í cäñ tÿpë ït.

Congratulations.

I'm just too lazy to do so

The MS-supported way of typing that uses a keyboard layout that's not compatible with programming.

Quotation marks become a source of frustration.

For normal typing it's not as bad. But for programming, no thanks.

@Cerberus argh...the labels have all mixed up meanings now.

@Cerberus argh...what is economically liberal? probably lots of free trade/low tariffs/low regulations, right?

@Mitch Aaaargh!

@Cerberus "Quotation" 'marks' are 'frustrating "'enough'" <as it> ""is"".

@Mitch Yes, and, very importantly, low taxes.

Liberal = free from state (and peer?) influence, in my book.

Could be social, financial, or perhaps even otherwise.

@Mitch You say ënough", because Microsoft doesn't want you to say "ënough"".

I tried guillemets and reverse guillemets, but I sprained my pinkie.

You were close.

Left and right are even more complicated than liberal and...whatever the opposite is.

conservative?

reactionary?

monarchical?

trump?

I would oppose those to progressive, not to liberal.

Hello!

@JohanLarsson nice

isn't progressive just a synonym for liberal? maybe a little more so?

liberal is a broken word imo

broken people

nothing wrong with it but it has been used for too much

@Mitch Nooo!

same with feminism

@Cerberus what then?

I don't know.

But progressive is the opposite of conservative or reactionary.

@JohanLarsson I don't think 'feminism' is a broken word. too many people use it pejoratively though.

Sweden is very feminist; perhaps it's different there.

and those people are like puppies who are not housebroken and have peed on the carpet. Bad People!

maybe

:36064415

you should be president in holland cerb

or king or whatever it is

or both of course

King, preferably.

I could marry one of the princesses.

But it would take a while.

we have all the time in the world

Good, good.

@Cerberus are they available?

Certainly.

The eldest is 14, I believe.

Nice.

The crown princess

Indeed.

So you have time to plan it out

Yeah.

I mean it would be kinda weird at her age.

But, you know, royalty.

It used to be normal.

Marriages were often not consummated any time soon.

But to be related to Charlemagne, even by marriage, that would be something on your resumé.

But then, he was not particularly progressive.

I don't know whether anyone could prove that!

Some families can be traced back to the 9th century, I believe.

But to him?

Well, him and a few very 'popular' sailors in the 1500s probably means that pretty much every body is Europe is related by at least one of the way back

Haha.

Probably.

And America, too.

@Tonepoet Plagiarism? Why plagiarism?

Plagiarism, why?

Plagiarism is when you take somebody's work without permission or attribution. It doesn't matter if it's accidental, at least insofar as Stack Exchange is concerned.

@Tonepoet But there is attribution there.

It's misattribution.

@Tonepoet That's still not plagiarism. And not by SE's standards either:

> In the context of Stack Exchange sites, any copying and pasting of any amount of text or code that wasn't written by you is plagiarism if you try, explicitly or implicitly, to pass it off as your own work.

Nobody is passing off anything as their own work.

misattribution to one's self is plagiarism ... misattribution to someone not one's self is, well, misattribution

Heh, yes. Well put.

@skullpetrol Mz. Please.

attributing something to a lot of people is mass attribution

So is attributing a lot of things to a single person.

attributing to lichens is moss attribution

Ouch :)

:D

:D

@terdon Okay, your objection is fair.

attribution to the pulpit is Mass attribution

@terdon so is blaming burgers for why one is fat

Oh man. . . it's started again. . .

it was only sleeping

What foul pun slouches to Bethlehem to be born?

Slouches! Dammit!

Religion won't save you here!

Quite the contrary.

So I edited the post to remove the word plagiarism. XP

Any other thoughts on the matter?

@skullpetrol That's not religion! It's misquoted poetry!

@Tonepoet Personally, I feel you're being way too delicate. Editing is fine. Editing a wrong answer to make it correct is even finer. I'd just edit the thing and be done with it.

The OP can always roll it back if they disagree.

But that's what meta's for.

Let's see how the discussion goes.

@terdon Did you even read the question? The O.P. is an absentee.

@Tonepoet Yes. And I don't see how that's relevant.

How can an absentee roll back the edit?

If they come back and object, they can roll back. If they don't, no harm done anyway.

Answers don't belong to the person who posted them. They're in the public domain as soon as they're posted. So dancing around editing out a mistake so as not to offend the OP seems pointless to me.

As they say in sports, no blood no foul.

@skullpetrol Dude, you must play some mean ping pong!

:P

:D

@terdon If it was a community wiki post, I'd be more inclined to agree but since it's not, I think it'd be more accurate to say that answers don't solely belong to the person who posted them.

@Tonepoet Ah, no. That one is unequivocal and network-wide. Anything you post here is released under the CC-by-SA license and categorically does not belong to you. Or, rather, you give everyone the right to change it and use it as they wish.

So yes, there is absolutely no reason to refrain from editing when an OP is no longer active. You might choose to comment instead in cases where you know the OP is active so that they may edit as they see fit. That's just politeness though. Not a rule.

And not applicable to cases where the OP isn't active anymore.

@terdon The content of the post is CC-BY-SA 3.0 (which is not completely public domain. That's CC 0) The post itself is a different matter altogether.

@Tonepoet That went over my head. "The post itself is a different matter altogether."?

And yeah, not completely public domain, that's why I added a qualifier: "Or, rather, you give everyone the right to change it and use it as they wish."

@terdon Even that much is somewhat inaccurate. The full license is rather complex and does require disclosure of what adaptations were made from the original work under section 3b. Granted, I believe our editing revisions cover that bit.

But the post is the area where text is displayed and the author is accredited as the primary author. The content of the post is the text that appears within it.

Anyway @Terdon, aside from the help center provision I cited, I did see a few relevant meta posts regarding the subject in the past. When I see them, I'll ping you but I'm not sure how to even hunt those down now.

You seem to be much more knowledgeable about the licensing details than I am so I won't argue the point. I do know, however, that the norm across all SE sites I am active in, is that editing is a good thing whenever it improves the post.

@Tonepoet Oh, I've read them, posted them, answered them. Take my word for it. I'm a mod on two sites, you wouldn't believe the number of times I've had to explain to users that if they don't like their posts being edited, they shouldn't be posting here.

@Cerberus and all the Spanish colonies too except for maybe some people way way back in the Amazon

@MattE.Эллен ooh I have one...

falsely labeling it to a young lady is miss attribution

@terdon I do realize that. The help center even says as much. That is part of why I am suggesting an edit. It's just that there's a point where the edits can go too far. It's hard to say where that is exactly isn't it?

@terdon well that's not fair, it was deleted

Quit yer whining.

it was mythattributed

@Tonepoet Yeah, that's true. My own take is I don't care. Any edit that makes the post better is fine. Then again, the edit culture on U&L is quite aggressive. I've seen cases where a crap answer was made into a great answer through extensive editing. And yes, that changed the OP's intent but nobody cared. We cared that what was the accepted answer (the OP didn't know any better) is now correct and that, IMO, should always be the final arbitrer.

That goes double when the OP is no longer active. In that case, I see absolutely no reason not to edit or even, if necessary, completely rewrite the answer as long as it's a correct edit.

On the other hand, I also acknowledge that the subject matter of ELU is more open to interpretation than that of the other, more technical, sites I am active in.

@terdon Oh yeah, our subject matter is definitely closer to the sociology side of the fields arranged by purity strip shown in good subjective;bad subjective. I'm not even sure which side of the sociologist we are on...

If the word sociolinguistic is any indicator, we probably are the sociologist.

@Mitch Exactly. We're all scum/royalty.

@Tonepoet if forced to be on a linear scale, linguistics is somewhere between biology and psychology. but as the comparisons are not exactly linear, yes, sociolinguistics tends towards the 'sciency horseshit' end of the scale.

@Mitch That is what some branches of linguistics would like to be.

But in fact it is also of the humanities.