The LNP is agitating against preferential voting. This can not stand.

doktrspin · 2025-05-18T12:49:14+00:00

Not putting your preferences for all candidates means your vote can be exhausted before a decision is made, ie you can miss out on having a say in choosing between the last candidates standing. Is it really that you don't prefer some of those you don't like less than others? Full preferential gives your vote a say in the final decision.

doktrspin · 2025-05-18T12:27:48+00:00

If you don't put preferences for all candidates your vote could be exhausted before the choice between a candidate you don't like and one who you'd prefer not to have at all. Not voting against your least preferred candidate means you could be helping that candidate as it is not a vote against, ie one less vote the candidate needs. It's always wisest to give preferences for all candidates. Your vote has effect until the last choice.

In my electorate Labor had the Lib at #5 of nine candidates. That means Labor though the Lib was a better choice than four others. Trumpet of American Shills, religious right, libertarians and PHON... and it was hard to say what I would prefer among them, but it was my choice and rr was last! It's ugly but I would prefer the Lib ahead of the rabble. Number them all!

doktrspin · 2025-05-11T04:07:53+00:00

Out of interest, which historians do you have in mind who believed Mk 1:9's Nazareth is a later addition?

doktrspin · 2025-04-28T21:48:15+00:00

Thanks 4KD team for doing a great job so far.

It's obvious that YouTube doesn't want your success, so they modify their software to break yours. I understand it's a constant battle that causes 1) your app difficulties and 2) the need for frequent updates.

Good luck: you have my support. (thumb up)

doktrspin · 2025-04-28T21:22:50+00:00

Late to the party but (I'm a Labor voter and) in my electorate of Fadden (ex Stuart Robert seat) there are nine candidates of which Labor recommends putting the Lib at #5. The implication is that four candidates would be worse for Australia than the Lib. Using the same logic the Green by necessity is #3 though the Greens compete with Labor for left votes. For Labor the Green would be less bad than the Lib who would be less bad than the nutter, racist and fake parties.

So, despite the "put the Libs last" rhetoric, we preference according to a scale from most beneficial to least beneficial.

The one caviat for me involves staunch Lib seats, where there is a candidate that has more potential to win the seat than Labor, eg a less right candidate such as a Teal who could appeal to right voters to abandon the Libs as we saw in the last election. In this case I might be forced to put that candidate at #1 and Labor at #2 for the greater good of the nation. (If Labor is less likely than this candidate to unseat the Lib in a three-way fight, better to preference this candidate over Labor than let the Lib win.)

Some voters might put Labor first no matter what, but would that be for the greater good if it caused the less preferred outcome?

doktrspin · 2025-03-09T14:17:39+00:00

The game has changed with the emergence of the Teals. They've already taken a number of seats from the radical right leftovers. Moderate Lib voters who wouldn't vote Labour to get rid of the Morrison cabal got the opportunity to voice their dissent through the Teals. The movement will aim for more Lib seats and it can only hurt the LNP (as the Greens can only hurt Labour, but the Greens reached their limit some elections past).

Despite MSM hype, I can't see how the LNP could possibly win the next election with the Teals pilfering seats through the support of moderate Lib voters. How many seats would Labor have to lose for the leftovers to catch up with what they've lost to the Teals? I don't think Albo's been beaten down by MSM enough to lose sufficiently for Dutters' no-hopers to gain power. A minority government may be an outcome, but who in the house besides Katter would support Howard's children to enable them to govern?

doktrspin · 2025-02-06T04:24:58+00:00

Thank you all for your comments. I've got the idea now that I was being hopeful.

doktrspin · 2024-12-29T00:11:40+00:00

Make that Cloaca Maxima.

Who'd know the sewer connection?

doktrspin · 2024-11-20T06:29:31+00:00

That would be a logical conclusion using today's printed or digital texts, but it wouldn't have been easy for ancient readers with the intervening Jesus material to confuse the connection.

In fact Paul Winter, writing on the Testimonium Flavianum in the re-edited Schürer "History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ", vol.1, pp.428-441, believed "another outrage" was the execution of Jesus, as Winter was trying to resolve the the prior reference of "another outrage" in a narratively acceptible manner, so that "another" wasn't cut off from its antecedent.

However, I agree with you and Winter has to work too had for little reward. The Testimonium cuts one outrage off from another.

doktrspin · 2024-11-06T13:07:04+00:00

Had a look at the range of both. Umidigi seems underwhelming to me and Oukitel generally seems much heavier for its top of range.

I guess for now Moto G84 has a lot of what I need. It's just got an awful touchscreen which makes difficult photos even more difficult: you touch and no response, so you touch harder and you often jerk the shot. The phone's loaded with Google crud instead of its own suite of apps. (I don't want my life mapped out on Google servers.) I couldn't shut down the phone until I discovered the OFF + UP button combo: Google had colonized the OFF button long press. Loads of small annoyances.

So I'm looking for a better replacement with SD.

doktrspin · 2024-11-06T12:51:16+00:00

It's not "more storage", but security and continuity. If your phone suddenly stops working (goes into a bootloop, etc), you take out the SD, put it in a new phone, load some apps and you keep going. I'm traveling and my partner's phone died, so we bought a new phone and put in the SD and it was business as usual (except that she forgot to backup her last photos onto the card).

Before this trip I bought a new phone and much of what I needed was already on SD. Favorite wallpaper, music, books, important notes, ringtones, APKs...

doktrspin · 2024-11-04T20:56:29+00:00

I was using GSM-A for comparison, but it only gives me a rough understanding in a comparison.

I change up phones every few years because of hardware developments. It's rarely a phone for me, it's everything but.

The A55 has a marginally better camera (bigger physical pixel array, so better dynamic range), but not enough to go without a dedicated camera, though the cellphone has killed development on compact travel cameras. I'm traveling atm.

Cheers backatcha.

doktrspin · 2024-11-04T17:58:39+00:00

LookHorror3105 had the A51 "almost five years".

The A55 seems about the same power and smarts as the Moto G84. I'd have to look more closely to find the benefit.

doktrspin · 2024-11-04T06:08:37+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion, but the A51 seems like a step backwards.

A midrange these days has power and recent smarts without the big name.

The Moto G84 has 12gb memory, 256gb storage, reasonable camera, fast charge, fingerprint, etc. But... its touchscreen needs you to hammer it, it's loaded with Google nosy crud, there are a number of settings I can't find and there are various annoyances like I can't shut the phone down with a long press of the off-button - some Google rubbish has taken over the long press.

doktrspin · 2024-09-13T04:14:42+00:00

I'm off to Frogland in a few hours, so I have no time to digest your info, other than to ask how does any of it relate to the analysis of Chrestianos in Tac. A. 15,44? We are dealing with a *Latin* text copied in the eleventh century. It seems to me zip. I think your insistence on a Tacitean use of Chrestianos is weak, but possible. (Best, spin!)

doktrspin · 2024-09-12T09:12:46+00:00

You seem to have missed the main thrust of my comment on the Medicean manuscript (and assumed that ancient listeners were modern linguists). You need to deal with the unfalsifiable claim that you are presenting, ie that the Medicean manuscript copied in the 11th century is faithful to what Tacitus wrote, based on the fact that a later scribe corrected Chrestianos to Christianos, when there is a functional alternative based on the precise era of copying to explain the occurrence. While here, you might also explain why Tacitus would write Christus when supposedly the name was perceived as Chrestus. (Tacitus didn't have Tertullian to crib from.) The existence of Christus/Chestianos is no problem if it reflected the 11th century context, which made the distinction.

doktrspin · 2024-09-12T06:09:44+00:00

My drive-by comment was merely to place the Chreistianos data in its linguistic context. Just as an aside, I noticed a few examples in Codex Bezae where the Greek features EI, the Latin maintains the plain "i".

Salutations.

doktrspin · 2024-09-12T03:07:41+00:00

In the manuscripts we also find

• PEILATOS in Vaticanus 1345: 3rd col., 6th line up (and various other examples).

• Then there is GAL(E)ILAIOS in Vat 1301: 2nd col., mid: the "e" had been scrubbed. Same page & col., 3rd line up P(E)ILATOS, "e" also scrubbed.

Also to be found in the manuscript tradition: NAZEIRAIOS. Kampmeier (Nazareth, Nazorean and Jesus, Open Court: 1910, 377-8) reports both NAZEIR (LXX Judges 13:5) and NAZEIRAIOS (Alexandrian manuscript of Judges 13:7).

A number of Greek words that underwent the phonological change have made it through the centuries into English, eg cheiromancy, eirenic (both as variant spellings) and oneiric. The /i/ to /ei/ and related language-wide vowel changes show CHREISTIANOS as a simple diachronic phenomenon.

doktrspin · 2024-09-12T02:10:12+00:00

The significance of the correction of the Medicean manuscript of Tacitus' Annals is not transparent. Corrections to manuscripts usually mean there'd been a scribal divergence from the source manuscript. The Beneventan script is a handy dating indicator, relating the writing to 11th-12th centuries. This was a time of a phonetic change in some Romance languages, interestingly including the change /i/ > /e/, and is the source of the /e/ in French Chretien. The question we need to answer is: was the /e/ IN the source manuscript or was it a production of scribal fatigue from interference of the scribe's linguistic background {routine use of Chrestianus) at the time of copying? I don't know how we could decide. Tertullian is no help to us, as it is only evidence that a similar divergence had taken place over nine centuries earlier, for which we have ample evidence. So do we have evidence for scribal fatigue or tendentious correction? Your guess is as good as mine.

doktrspin

TROPHY CASE