StCapps Not Even Allowed To Start Threads Anymore

[K@th]

"shit" – as when "shit!" is said after a fender bender (in contrast with something's being "shitty”, or of poor quality). This implies that an unexpected event has occurred that frustrates the speaker's aspirations (such as avoiding costly auto repairs, getting to work quickly). The aspirations are subjective, or up to the person, but the event in question has to actually occur. Shit happens, and has to happen, for it to be shit: shit has existence as its essence. Or, more plainly: if the fender bender or other untoward event hasn't actually occurred, it won't be expressively correct to say "shit!" (Except in fictional cases, when things are fictionally presented as actually happening – a pretty special context.)

"fucking"–as in "the fucking car wouldn't start, right there in the middle of the road”. This implies major frustration of someone's plans, though not necessarily the speaker's. I could be hearing the story of a woman whose car had stalled in the middle of the road and say "really, and the fucking car just wouldn't start?" Her plans would be majorly frustrated, but (unlike "oops") I wouldn't have had to observe the events myself or even myself have the frustrated plans (the event may have passed, in which case there is nothing, as regards that event, to plan for).

"fucker" – as directed at a toaster that burns one's toast or an electrical outlet that shocks one. The object is personified as having malicious intent. The expressive correctness of the terms depends on whether the metaphor is apt, given the situation’s descriptive features. (We'd usually say this of more readily personified objects, such as toasters or computers, but perhaps not a stationary rock.)

"mother fucker" – a metaphorical way of saying someone can't be trusted. You can't trust him not to have sex with your own mother if he had the chance. The term is inapt if someone is completely trustworthy.

"bastard" – much as with "mother fucker”, implies treachery, that the person in question is a traitor, or would-be traitor. When we aren't thinking of its non-derogatory meaning ("one without a father"), a person doesn't count as a bastard, in the central, paradigmatic sense, unless they are treacherous or prone to betray others in relationships. It would be a mistake to call someone a bastard if he (or she?) were reliably faithful in what his relationships required.

Kaplan seems to disagree about “bastard”. (He treats "That bastard X" as akin to "That damn X”.) But no matter. Though "damned" or "damnable" does have an older and very rich set of meanings, especially religious ones, I think Kaplan is right about one use of "damn”, which seems to be a purely "subjective" expressive, without external correctness conditions. If I say "Damn you!" it seems pretty clear that I in some sense express my disapproval of you. The word "damn" itself carries that implication when it is sincerely used, by virtue of the linguistic conventions that set its meaning. I can't sincerely (and properly) say "That damn Trump; but I really like him!"

So traditional emotivism gets one case right. Still, this seems an exceptional case. If so many foul terms seem to be “objective expressives”, then it is natural to see any expressive element in “asshole” in a similar way. My definition says when the term is descriptively correct. If we like, we can add that it will be expressively correct when, and only when, the speaker in fact disapproves, or finds disapproval appropriate, in virtue of the asshole’s acting upon entitlements that he does not in fact have.

This kind of reasoning has led me to be pretty sceptical about expressivist analyses of foul language generally. So much so that I’ve been flirting with the idea that there are four main categories of foul language and that expressivist treatments don’t apply to any of them straightforwardly.

[K@th]

The categories are these:

(1) vice terms, which purport to classify a kind of moral personality, correctly or incorrectly (e.g., “asshole”, jerk”, “bastard”, “motherfucker”, “schmuck”, “boor”, “cad”);

(2) pejorative terms, which assume false normative or moral claims about certain independently identifiable groups of people (e.g., "honkey”, "wop”, "kike”, “limey”, "chink”, "n----r");

(3) slurs, which invoke a metaphor (“four-eyes”, "pig”, "dickhead”, "cocksucker") that is often literally false and yet may be “true”, metaphorically speaking.

(4) objective expressives (e.g., “shit” and “fucking”), which are expressively correct or incorrect depending on what is going on in the world.

My conjecture is that these categories cover a lot if not most of foul language, and that each requires an appropriate “cognitivist” treatment. That is only a conjecture at this point, but it is not hard to appreciate its potential significance. If my hunch pans out, then expressivism is wrong even about most foul language. That is, it is wrong about the area of language where it has the best, fighting chance of being right.

I might add that this is presumably a further count against expressivism about ethical language generally. The case for a cognitivist “constructivism” about ethics of the kind I favour gets even better.

To be sure, everything then depends on how the different categories of foul language get developed. So here are few thoughts about “asshole” in relation to pejorative terms and slurs, taking each in turn.

Consider racist pejorative terms. In contrast with “asshole”, I’m inclined to see these terms quite differently, as systematically wrong. Here I mean the class of pejorative terms that get directed toward a particular group of people (“Yankee” or “honkey” and whites; "wop" and Italians; "kike" and Jews; "chink" and Chinese people; “limey” and English people; "n----r" and African-Americans). If we follow recent work by Chris Hom and Robert May, as I do, then the very meaning of these terms assumes certain normative beliefs or assumptions about the group in question. “Wop”, for instance, assumes that Italians are the appropriate object of contempt and discrimination, simply because they are Italian.

Now suppose the assumed judgements of appropriateness are radically mistaken. From a moral perspective, no one is the appropriate object of contempt or discrimination simply because they happen to belong to a racial group. In that case, the racist judgement that Berlusconi is a wop will lay claim to truth and yet fall into error by virtue of resting on a false presupposition. Since “wop” has a false presupposition, the claim that Berlusconi is a wop is neither true nor false.

We presumably won’t want to say that about “asshole”. We can surely be mistaken about what someone is or is not entitled to. Yet it is a pretty radical form of scepticism to hold that the moral presuppositions of an asshole judgement are systematically wrong. In that case, there are no kikes, no chinks, and certainly no “n-----rs”. And Berlusconi is not a wop – even if he is an asshole.

Now consider the different category of slurs, like “four eyes” and “dickhead”, understood as metaphors. “Asshole” probably initially got its meaning as a metaphorical slur.

Calling someone an asshole is of course literally false in the non-moral sense of “asshole” that refers to a physical body part, just as it is literally false to say of someone that he is his own left arm. To say either thing is at best some kind of metaphor. Yet, if I am right that “he’s an asshole” can be a literally true or false, from a moral perspective. This raises an interesting question: how could “asshole” come to have acquired a literal moral meaning? The real, full story is presumably complicated. Still, it is helpful, or at least interesting, to speculate with something like the following conjectural history.

In the beginning was the word, used as a mere metaphor. Geoffrey Nunberg tells us that “asshole” caught on in recent times among World War II soldiers. Imagine its first non-literal use: a solider called his superior officer – let’s call him Sargent Pug – "an asshole”, thereby inviting his fellow soldiers to imaginatively engage Pug in a certain unflattering light.

Although it is literally false that Pug is a body part, likening him to a foul and hidden part of his own body called attention to his arrogant disposition and repugnant personality. As with any good metaphor, at least as Richard Moran explains it, the point was to see or experience Pug as an asshole, to interpret him and his actions from an imaginative frame of reference that treats a man as the physical embodiment of a body part that behaves much as that body part might. They were to feel and almost believe that Pug is as problematic and as foul and yet shamefully exposing himself in public.

The more literal minded of soldiers might have objected: "Look, it’s not strictly speaking, literally true that Pug is an asshole any more than it can be literally true that Pug is his own left arm”. In reply, the soldiers would have laughed off the objection as beside the point. Sure, they'll say, the statement "Pug is an asshole" is literally false; "asshole" is just a metaphor. The point is that it is especially apt. Or as we might elaborate the idea, the use of the word by the soldiers says things about Pug that could not have been literally said of him up to this point. Perhaps some of those things can be put as literal truth-claims, such as the claim that Pug isn't worthy of respect, or that he abuses his office, or that he is contemptible. But those truths aren't the whole point of the metaphor, which is mainly to see Pug in an unflattering light that cannot be fully expressed in so many truths.

Because the metaphor was apt, it quickly caught on as a way of speaking. Use of the term became popular among the other soldiers on the base, in the wider army, and then in further reaches of society. The term was especially useful as communication. People found calling someone an asshole an especially handy way of conveying and perhaps even venting their contempt for abusive authority figures who are not, for them, worthy of respect. Those who heard the metaphor invoked found it especially easy to grasp what the speaker meant: they meant not simply to vent feelings of contempt, but to invite an interpretation of their target that would make those feelings of contempt fully appropriate. That’s because, when someone calls someone an asshole, you could easily tell that he or she has a certain moral view of things: the view that person called an asshole is not worthy of respect, because of how he treats those around him.

Soon enough, when someone used the word, you could readily land upon this interpretation of the user's meaning, without knowing very much about his or her context of utterance. The metaphor thus came into a different kind of meaning: calling someone an asshole moved away from mere metaphorical communication and became a literal, more routine claim to truth, a claim to the truth of a moral judgement: that the person in question is not worthy of respect because of the way he treats others.

Even now few were especially careful or aware about exactly what kind of unsavoury people they were calling an asshole. Still, there was a rough but remarkable convergence. The invited perspective would be appropriate for certain kinds of people and not for others. Knowing or not, people began to grasp the rules of normal usage, which called for one type of person to be called an asshole and left other types for better names.

Eventually, the rules settled. They became well enough established that a competent speaker of the language could entertain asshole judgements without meaning to express contemptuous attitudes. The curious user of the language would wonder whether this person is the right kind of person to qualify as unworthy of respect, even without feeling at all exercised about this, let alone speaking out about it. The curious person would ask questions that don't express negative attitudes, such as "Is Trump an asshole?" And people could reason with hypotheticals, such as, "If Trump is an asshole, I probably shouldn't watch his show; Trump does seem to be an asshole: so I probably shouldn't watch his show”.

Beyond private reflections, all of this could be discussed in a mode of cool-headed argument among friends. Over coffee, friends might agree that, yes, Trump indeed qualifies as an asshole, literally speaking. They might conclude on that basis that they probably shouldn't go out of their way to listen to him or watch his show, having reasoned together and reached agreement upon what they all regard as an objective matter of moral fact: Trump is, in fact, an asshole.

Now when a less agreeable fellow in the coffee shop says it isn't literally true that Trump is an asshole, the friends don't say what the soldiers said to their literal-minded fellow solider. They don’t agree and say that this is beside the point. They beg to differ. They reply: "no, that's wrong; Trump definitely qualifies; he's literally an asshole; you've made a mistake”. At that point, the journey of “asshole” from metaphorical slur to vice term was complete.

[K@th]

The categories are these:

(1) vice terms, which purport to classify a kind of moral personality, correctly or incorrectly (e.g., “asshole”, jerk”, “bastard”, “motherfucker”, “schmuck”, “boor”, “cad”);

(2) pejorative terms, which assume false normative or moral claims about certain independently identifiable groups of people (e.g., "honkey”, "wop”, "kike”, “limey”, "chink”, "n----r");

(3) slurs, which invoke a metaphor (“four-eyes”, "pig”, "dickhead”, "cocksucker") that is often literally false and yet may be “true”, metaphorically speaking.

(4) objective expressives (e.g., “shit” and “fucking”), which are expressively correct or incorrect depending on what is going on in the world.

My conjecture is that these categories cover a lot if not most of foul language, and that each requires an appropriate “cognitivist” treatment. That is only a conjecture at this point, but it is not hard to appreciate its potential significance. If my hunch pans out, then expressivism is wrong even about most foul language. That is, it is wrong about the area of language where it has the best, fighting chance of being right.

I might add that this is presumably a further count against expressivism about ethical language generally. The case for a cognitivist “constructivism” about ethics of the kind I favour gets even better.

To be sure, everything then depends on how the different categories of foul language get developed. So here are few thoughts about “asshole” in relation to pejorative terms and slurs, taking each in turn.

Consider racist pejorative terms. In contrast with “asshole”, I’m inclined to see these terms quite differently, as systematically wrong. Here I mean the class of pejorative terms that get directed toward a particular group of people (“Yankee” or “honkey” and whites; "wop" and Italians; "kike" and Jews; "chink" and Chinese people; “limey” and English people; "n----r" and African-Americans). If we follow recent work by Chris Hom and Robert May, as I do, then the very meaning of these terms assumes certain normative beliefs or assumptions about the group in question. “Wop”, for instance, assumes that Italians are the appropriate object of contempt and discrimination, simply because they are Italian.

Now suppose the assumed judgements of appropriateness are radically mistaken. From a moral perspective, no one is the appropriate object of contempt or discrimination simply because they happen to belong to a racial group. In that case, the racist judgement that Berlusconi is a wop will lay claim to truth and yet fall into error by virtue of resting on a false presupposition. Since “wop” has a false presupposition, the claim that Berlusconi is a wop is neither true nor false.

[K@th]

We presumably won’t want to say that about “asshole”. We can surely be mistaken about what someone is or is not entitled to. Yet it is a pretty radical form of scepticism to hold that the moral presuppositions of an asshole judgement are systematically wrong. In that case, there are no kikes, no chinks, and certainly no “n-----rs”. And Berlusconi is not a wop – even if he is an asshole.

Now consider the different category of slurs, like “four eyes” and “dickhead”, understood as metaphors. “Asshole” probably initially got its meaning as a metaphorical slur.

Calling someone an asshole is of course literally false in the non-moral sense of “asshole” that refers to a physical body part, just as it is literally false to say of someone that he is his own left arm. To say either thing is at best some kind of metaphor. Yet, if I am right that “he’s an asshole” can be a literally true or false, from a moral perspective. This raises an interesting question: how could “asshole” come to have acquired a literal moral meaning? The real, full story is presumably complicated. Still, it is helpful, or at least interesting, to speculate with something like the following conjectural history.

In the beginning was the word, used as a mere metaphor. Geoffrey Nunberg tells us that “asshole” caught on in recent times among World War II soldiers. Imagine its first non-literal use: a solider called his superior officer – let’s call him Sargent Pug – "an asshole”, thereby inviting his fellow soldiers to imaginatively engage Pug in a certain unflattering light.

Although it is literally false that Pug is a body part, likening him to a foul and hidden part of his own body called attention to his arrogant disposition and repugnant personality. As with any good metaphor, at least as Richard Moran explains it, the point was to see or experience Pug as an asshole, to interpret him and his actions from an imaginative frame of reference that treats a man as the physical embodiment of a body part that behaves much as that body part might. They were to feel and almost believe that Pug is as problematic and as foul and yet shamefully exposing himself in public.

The more literal minded of soldiers might have objected: "Look, it’s not strictly speaking, literally true that Pug is an asshole any more than it can be literally true that Pug is his own left arm”. In reply, the soldiers would have laughed off the objection as beside the point. Sure, they'll say, the statement "Pug is an asshole" is literally false; "asshole" is just a metaphor. The point is that it is especially apt. Or as we might elaborate the idea, the use of the word by the soldiers says things about Pug that could not have been literally said of him up to this point. Perhaps some of those things can be put as literal truth-claims, such as the claim that Pug isn't worthy of respect, or that he abuses his office, or that he is contemptible. But those truths aren't the whole point of the metaphor, which is mainly to see Pug in an unflattering light that cannot be fully expressed in so many truths.

Because the metaphor was apt, it quickly caught on as a way of speaking. Use of the term became popular among the other soldiers on the base, in the wider army, and then in further reaches of society. The term was especially useful as communication. People found calling someone an asshole an especially handy way of conveying and perhaps even venting their contempt for abusive authority figures who are not, for them, worthy of respect. Those who heard the metaphor invoked found it especially easy to grasp what the speaker meant: they meant not simply to vent feelings of contempt, but to invite an interpretation of their target that would make those feelings of contempt fully appropriate. That’s because, when someone calls someone an asshole, you could easily tell that he or she has a certain moral view of things: the view that person called an asshole is not worthy of respect, because of how he treats those around him.

Soon enough, when someone used the word, you could readily land upon this interpretation of the user's meaning, without knowing very much about his or her context of utterance. The metaphor thus came into a different kind of meaning: calling someone an asshole moved away from mere metaphorical communication and became a literal, more routine claim to truth, a claim to the truth of a moral judgement: that the person in question is not worthy of respect because of the way he treats others.

Even now few were especially careful or aware about exactly what kind of unsavoury people they were calling an asshole. Still, there was a rough but remarkable convergence. The invited perspective would be appropriate for certain kinds of people and not for others. Knowing or not, people began to grasp the rules of normal usage, which called for one type of person to be called an asshole and left other types for better names.

Eventually, the rules settled. They became well enough established that a competent speaker of the language could entertain asshole judgements without meaning to express contemptuous attitudes. The curious user of the language would wonder whether this person is the right kind of person to qualify as unworthy of respect, even without feeling at all exercised about this, let alone speaking out about it. The curious person would ask questions that don't express negative attitudes, such as "Is Trump an asshole?" And people could reason with hypotheticals, such as, "If Trump is an asshole, I probably shouldn't watch his show; Trump does seem to be an asshole: so I probably shouldn't watch his show”.

Beyond private reflections, all of this could be discussed in a mode of cool-headed argument among friends. Over coffee, friends might agree that, yes, Trump indeed qualifies as an asshole, literally speaking. They might conclude on that basis that they probably shouldn't go out of their way to listen to him or watch his show, having reasoned together and reached agreement upon what they all regard as an objective matter of moral fact: Trump is, in fact, an asshole.

Now when a less agreeable fellow in the coffee shop says it isn't literally true that Trump is an asshole, the friends don't say what the soldiers said to their literal-minded fellow solider. They don’t agree and say that this is beside the point. They beg to differ. They reply: "no, that's wrong; Trump definitely qualifies; he's literally an asshole; you've made a mistake”. At that point, the journey of “asshole” from metaphorical slur to vice term was complete.

[StCapps]

[K@th]

Pretty Pretty Princess
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (August 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Become a Princess in this Jewelry Dress-up Game
The board game Pretty Pretty Princess is a game for young children (ages five and up) with a fantasy/role-play theme. This game does not sell in stores anymore.

Contents [hide]
1 Game specifications
2 Summary of play
3 History
4 References
5 External links
Game specifications[edit]
Ages: 5 and up
Number of Players: 2-4
Playing Time: 20-30 Minutes
Package Contents: Board, Jewelry box (lid includes spinner and mirror), Crown, 4 Pawns, 21 Jewelry pieces (4 each Necklaces/Bracelets/Earrings, 5 Rings), 2 Sheets Labels
Summary of play[edit]
Pretty Pretty Princess is a turn-based game. Initially the players spin to see who moves first, and then play continues clockwise. Players spin the spinner to advance around the game board while attempting to collect a complete set of jewelry by landing on spaces associated with each piece. The game ends when a player has a complete set of jewelry in their chosen color, plus the crown. There is a black ring which does not belong to any color set: if a player holds the black ring when the game ends, they lose.

Pretty Pretty Princess does not require reading or complex counting skills, and contains no electronics or mechanical components. The jewelry pieces are sized so that children of appropriate age to play can actually wear them as the game progresses, encouraging imaginative play.

History[edit]
Pretty Pretty Princess was invented in 1989 by Elizabeth Pacza, a designer at Chicago-based content creator Meyer/Glass Design, Ltd.[1] Originally licensed to Western Publishing Group in 1989, where Peggy Brown handled internal development,[2] the game was released in 1990. Hasbro acquired the property in 1994 as part of its purchase of the games unit of Western.[3] Hasbro has since marketed the game under its Milton Bradley imprint.

Multiple special editions of Pretty Pretty Princess have been produced, including licensed Disney variants such as Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella versions. As of May 4, 2014, new product is not available, although "Pretty Pretty Princess" is still a registered trademark of Hasbro, Inc.[4]

References[edit]
Jump up ^ http://www.museumofplay.org/online-coll ... 8/111.5854
Jump up ^ http://www.museumofplay.org/online-coll ... 8/111.5854
Jump up ^ https://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/08/busi ... asbro.html
Jump up ^ http://www.trademarkia.com/pretty-prett ... 80328.html
External links[edit]
Official rules
Categories: Board games introduced in 1990

[K@th]

KCJO-LD
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
KCJO-LD
Cbs 30 kcjo.png
St. Joseph, Missouri
United States
Branding CBS 30 KCJO (general)
News-Press Now on CBS 30 KCJO (newscasts)
Channels Digital: 30 (UHF)
Virtual: 30 (PSIP)
Translators KNPN-LD 26.2 (UHF) St. Joseph
Affiliations CBS (2017–present)
Owner News-Press & Gazette Company
(News-Press TV, LLC)
First air date January 1, 2014 (4 years ago)
Call letters' meaning Cronkite or CBS
St. JOseph
(modified from the previous KBJO calls, which were also previously used as the original callsign of sister station KNPG-LD)
Sister station(s) KNPN-LD, KNPG-LD,
News-Press NOW
Former callsigns KNPG-LD (2014–2016)
KBJO-LD (2016–2017)
Former affiliations Telemundo (2014–2017)
Transmitter power 0.75 kW
Height 77 m (253 ft)
Class LD
Facility ID 188057
Transmitter coordinates 39°45′0.0″N 94°50′25.0″W
Licensing authority FCC
Public license information: Profile
CDBS
Website www.newspressnow.com/tv/
KCJO-LD, virtual and UHF digital channel 30, is a low-powered CBS-affiliated television station licensed to St. Joseph, Missouri, United States. Owned by the News-Press & Gazette Company, it is a sister station to fellow flagship outlets, NBC/CW/Telemundo affiliate KNPG-LD (channel 21) and Fox affiliate KNPN-LD (channel 26). The three stations share studios at News-Press & Gazette's corporate headquarters (which also house operations for the St. Joseph News-Press and local news and weather channel News-Press NOW) on Edmond Street in downtown St. Joseph; KCJO's transmitter is located between South 16th and Duncan Streets (adjacent to U.S. 36), just southeast of downtown St. Joseph.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 History
1.1 Conversion to CBS as KCJO-LD
2 Digital television
2.1 Digital channel
3 News operation
4 References
5 External links
History[edit]
The station traces its history back to June 2, 2012, when News-Press and Gazette Company signed on KNPN-LD as the St. Joseph market's Fox affiliate,[2] the first broadcast television station to have been built and signed on by the locally based company. The station affiliated its fourth digital subchannel with Telemundo, which replaced the network's national feed on local cable providers as the Spanish-language network did not have an existing affiliate in Missouri.[3][4]

On December 19, 2012, News-Press & Gazette acquired a low-power digital television license in St. Joseph, K30ND-D from DTV America 1, LLC of Sunrise, Florida; concurrent with the consummation of the purchase, the station's call letters were changed to KNPG-LD (in reference to its parent company).[5]

The station signed on the air on January 1, 2014. In addition to carrying programming on its main signal in high definition, Telemundo programming continued to be simulcast in HD over KNPN's third digital subchannel (which replaced CW programming on that subchannel after KBJO-LD signed on in March 2013).[6] Although both stations are low-power, the coverage area of KNPN is still significantly larger than that of KNPG. Low-powered television stations are exempt from the must-carry and retransmission consent regulations that full-powered stations enjoy, meaning that KNPG's carriage on other area cable systems besides Suddenlink and satellite providers is not guaranteed.

On August 18, 2016, News-Press and Gazette Company announced that it would transfer the KNPG-LD callsign to its CW-affiliated sister station on channel 21, then KBJO-LD, as part of that station's conversion into the market's first locally based NBC affiliate (channel 21 joined the network on November 1 of that year, with The CW Plus feed moving to a newly created digital subchannel).[7] The CW affiliation was moved to subchannel 21.2 and KBJO-LD's callsign was relocated to channel 30, which continued as a Telemundo affiliate.[8]

Conversion to CBS as KCJO-LD[edit]
On February 24, 2017, News-Press & Gazette Company announced that KBJO would switch its primary affiliation to CBS on June 1. The move would return the network to the area for the first time since June 1967, when KFEQ-TV (channel 2, now KQTV) – which had been affiliated with CBS since its sign-on in September 1953 – became a full-time ABC affiliate; the network's Kansas City affiliate, KCTV (channel 5), which provides city-grade signal coverage in St. Joseph proper, had served as the area's default CBS station since that point. Soon after, it was also announced that KBJO would change its call letters to KCJO-LD on that date,[9] to reflect its CBS affiliation. Channel 30 officially switched to CBS at 12:01 a.m. on June 1. The move resulted in a digital subchannel realignment among the News-Press and Gazette Company's other St. Joseph stations: KCJO-LD's former Telemundo affiliation moved to sister station KNPG-LD, which began carrying the network on a new LD3 subchannel, while the simulcast of KCJO-LD's main feed was moved to KNPN-LD2, in light of KCJO-LD's severely low-powered status.[10][11]

To commemorate the affiliation switch, the Walter Cronkite Memorial at Missouri Western State University partnered with News-Press and Gazette Company to celebrate the relaunch by allowing the morning and 6:00 p.m. editions of News-Press Now (the shared news operation between KCJO, KNPN-LD, KNPG-LD and co-owned news channel News-Press NOW) to be broadcast from the memorial, which would highlight St. Joseph native and former CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite's history with the city and his news career.[12] As NPG already controls the market's Fox, NBC and CW affiliations respectively through KNPN and KNPG, the move gave the St. Joseph area in-market affiliates of all five major English-language commercial broadcast networks; the MyNetworkTV programming service – which is received in the area through KCTV's Meredith Corporation-owned sister station KSMO-TV (channel 62) – became the outlier among the country's conventional broadcast networks without a local affiliate in St. Joseph (KSMO-TV is receivable over-the-air and on Suddenlink Communications, Dish Network and DirecTV in the St. Joseph market).[10][11]

Digital television[edit]
Digital channel[edit]
Channel Video Aspect PSIP Short Name Programming[13]
30.1 1080i 16:9 KCJO Main KCJO-LD programming / CBS
News operation[edit]
KCJO-LD broadcasts 17 hours of locally produced newscasts each week (with three hours on weekdays and one hour on Saturdays and Sundays). The news department shared by KCJO, KNPN-LD and KNPG-LD also utilizes reporting and coverage resources from the St. Joseph News-Press, and also shares content with co-owned local news channel News-Press NOW, with all news programming carried by the properties produced in-house at the station's Edmond Street studios.

Although the station is co-owned with KNPN-LD, which has produced its own newscasts since it launched in June 2012, KBJO-LD did not broadcast any newscasts during its affiliation with Telemundo, with the only news content aired on the station consisting of the network's national morning and evening news programs as well as its breaking news coverage. This changed when channel 30 was relaunched as CBS affiliate KCJO on June 1, 2017, when the station implemented a news schedule consisting of simulcasts from its two sister broadcast stations. It began simulcasting the first 90 minutes of KNPN's weekday morning newscast (which runs on that station for 2½ hours, with the remaining hour airing exclusively on channel 26 as KCJO-LD airs CBS This Morning during the 7:00 a.m. hour of the broadcast) and its half-hour 5:00 p.m. newscast (the weekend editions of which do not air on KNPN-LD due partly to frequent pre-emptions on channel 26 caused by predetermined or gameplay-caused overruns by Fox Sports event broadcasts). It also began simulcasting the weeknight 6:00 p.m. and nightly 10:00 p.m. newscasts that it had begun producing for KNPG-LD when it joined NBC in November 2016.

[Speaker to Animals]

Go Leafs

[K@th]

Rose Mary Crawshay Prize
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Rose Mary Crawshay Prize is a literary prize for female scholars. It was inaugurated in 1888 and is stated by the British Academy to be the only UK literary prize for female scholars.[1] Two prizes can be awarded in any one year: "to a woman of any nationality who, in the judgement of the Council of the British Academy, has written or published within three years next preceding the year of the award an historical or critical work of sufficient value on any subject connected with English Literature, preference being given to a work regarding one of the poets Byron, Shelley and Keats".[2]

The prize was established by Rose Mary Crawshay as the Byron, Shelley, Keats In Memoriam Prize Fund.[3]

[K@th]

1967 English cricket season
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1967 English cricket season
← 19661968 →
The 1967 English cricket season saw India and Pakistan tour England to compete in a test series with England. Pakistan lost 2-0 and India lost 3-0.[1] [2]

Yorkshire won their second consecutive County Championship title.[3] [4]

Contents [hide]
1 Honours
2 Test series
2.1 India tour
2.2 Pakistan tour
3 County Championship
4 Gillette Cup
5 Leading batsmen
6 Leading bowlers
7 References
8 Annual reviews
9 External links
Honours[edit]
County Championship – Yorkshire
Gillette Cup – Kent
Minor Counties Championship – Cheshire
Second XI Championship – Hampshire II
Wisden – Asif Iqbal, Hanif Mohammad, Ken Higgs, Jim Parks junior, Nawab of Pataudi, junior
Test series[edit]
India tour[edit]
Main article: Indian cricket team in England in 1967
Pakistan tour[edit]
Main article: Pakistani cricket team in England in 1967
England played two series in 1967 and were very successful, beating India 3–0 and Pakistan 2–0. Ken Barrington scored a century in each of the three matches against Pakistan.

County Championship[edit]
Main article: 1967 County Championship
Gillette Cup[edit]
Main article: 1967 Gillette Cup
Leading batsmen[edit]
Ken Barrington topped the averages with 2059 runs at 68.63.

Leading bowlers[edit]
Derek Underwood topped the averages with 136 wickets at 12.39.

References[edit]
Jump up ^ "India in England, 1967". ESPN Cricinfo.
Jump up ^ "Pakistan in England, 1967". ESPN Cricinfo.
Jump up ^ Engel, Matthew (2004). Wisden Cricketers' Almanack 2004, pages 493-494. John Wisden & Company Ltd. ISBN 0-947766-83-9.
Jump up ^ Wynne-Thomas, Peter (1983). The Hamlyn A-Z of Cricket Records. Hamlyn Publishing Group. ISBN 0-600-34667-6.
Annual reviews[edit]
Playfair Cricket Annual 1968
Wisden Cricketers' Almanack 1968
External links[edit]
CricketArchive – season summary