Discussion:
Clayton
(too old to reply)
pamela
2018-05-11 17:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Have you seen the size of this whale.

https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton


And those rotten teeth.

--
GB
2018-05-11 17:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.

And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
Ophelia
2018-05-11 19:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/

Nothing to hide
pamela
2018-05-11 19:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/

Nothing to hide

6 Stanton Gardens, Manchester, M20 2PT

Silverback Systems Limited

Shacked up with

Irene Denise Bohanna.

***@btinternet.com
Tel.0161 446 2444
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a particular
interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the European
Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK by Winston Churchill).
R. Mark Clayton
2018-05-12 09:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ophelia
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/
Nothing to hide
6 Stanton Gardens, Manchester, M20 2PT
Silverback Systems Limited
Shacked up with
Tel.0161 446 2444
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a particular
interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the European
Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK by Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having pathetic pot shots at me personally, however leave my partner out of this.


PS I still have all my teeth except one and third wisdom teeth - what about you?
tim...
2018-05-12 10:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ophelia
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/
Nothing to hide
6 Stanton Gardens, Manchester, M20 2PT
Silverback Systems Limited
Shacked up with
Tel.0161 446 2444
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a particular
interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the European
Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK by Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having pathetic pot
shots at me personally, however leave my partner out of this.
PS I still have all my teeth except one and third wisdom teeth - what about you?
what the flip is this discussion about teeth all about
Ophelia
2018-05-12 13:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ophelia
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/
Nothing to hide
6 Stanton Gardens, Manchester, M20 2PT
Silverback Systems Limited
Shacked up with
Tel.0161 446 2444
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a particular
interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the European
Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK by Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having pathetic pot
shots at me personally, however leave my partner out of this.
PS I still have all my teeth except one and third wisdom teeth - what about you?
what the flip is this discussion about teeth all about

==

Pam's trying to be clever again:( She is not honest enough to sign her own
nastiness. She has to try and palm it of onto me.

If she think I will just sit back and say nothing she is stupid. But then
she is stupid anyway.
pamela
2018-05-12 22:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ophelia
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/
Nothing to hide
6 Stanton Gardens, Manchester, M20 2PT
Silverback Systems Limited
Shacked up with
Tel.0161 446 2444
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a
particular interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the
European Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK by
Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having
pathetic pot shots at me personally, however leave my partner out
of this.
PS I still have all my teeth except one and third wisdom teeth - what about you?
what the flip is this discussion about teeth all about
==
Pam's trying to be clever again:( She is not honest enough to
sign her own nastiness. She has to try and palm it of onto me.
If she think I will just sit back and say nothing she is stupid.
But then she is stupid anyway.
You're right. I was stupid. I thought you had forged some of my
posts. Now I know who it is I must apologise for thinking it was
you. I'm sorry.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-05-12 15:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
snip
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by GB
Post by pamela
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
SNIP
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having pathetic pot
shots at me personally, however leave my partner out of this.
PS I still have all my teeth except one and third wisdom teeth - what about you?
what the flip is this discussion about teeth all about
Part of the pathetic personal attack - see above.

My teeth have always been a bit yellow, but bleaching teeth weakens them so I haven't bothered.
Norman Wells
2018-05-12 11:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pamela
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a particular
interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the European
Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK by Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having pathetic pot shots at me personally
Can I ask this of you then:

You got just 916 votes at the last general election, ie a miserable 1.9%
of those cast and less than a third of those of the UKIP candidate. In
addition, nearly two-thirds of those in Wigan voted to leave the EU in
the referendum.

But you're a remainer.

How can you possibly claim to be fit to represent your constituency?

And how can you resist truthfully being labelled a Liberal Undemocrat?
R. Mark Clayton
2018-05-12 15:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pamela
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a particular
interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the European
Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK by Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having pathetic pot shots at me personally
You got just 916 votes at the last general election, ie a miserable 1.9%
of those cast and less than a third of those of the UKIP candidate. In
addition, nearly two-thirds of those in Wigan voted to leave the EU in
the referendum.
But you're a remainer.
How can you possibly claim to be fit to represent your constituency?
And how can you resist truthfully being labelled a Liberal Undemocrat?
Funny, I thought giving people a choice was part of the democratic process.

Sure disappointing result last year, but in 2010 I win my council ward with more than half the vote.

PS this month's elections - UKIP lost 123 seats leaving them with 3 and the Lib Dem's gained 75 ending up with 536 and gaining 4 councils including Richmond - Zac Goldsmith has already lost this seat once...
Norman Wells
2018-05-12 17:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pamela
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a particular
interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the European
Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK by Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having pathetic pot shots at me personally
You got just 916 votes at the last general election, ie a miserable 1.9%
of those cast and less than a third of those of the UKIP candidate. In
addition, nearly two-thirds of those in Wigan voted to leave the EU in
the referendum.
But you're a remainer.
How can you possibly claim to be fit to represent your constituency?
And how can you resist truthfully being labelled a Liberal Undemocrat?
Funny, I thought giving people a choice was part of the democratic process.
It is. They were. Once in a generation. They chose.

Democracy is about the will of the people. You should respect it.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Sure disappointing result last year, but in 2010 I win my council ward with more than half the vote.
Good for you. Stick to grass-mowing and fly-tipping. What's 2010 got
to do with Brexit?
Fredxx
2018-05-12 18:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by pamela
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a particular
interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the European
Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK by Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having
pathetic pot shots at me personally
You got just 916 votes at the last general election, ie a miserable 1.9%
of those cast and less than a third of those of the UKIP candidate.  In
addition, nearly two-thirds of those in Wigan voted to leave the EU in
the referendum.
But you're a remainer.
How can you possibly claim to be fit to represent your constituency?
And how can you resist truthfully being labelled a Liberal Undemocrat?
Funny, I thought giving people a choice was part of the democratic process.
It is.  They were.  Once in a generation.  They chose.
Democracy is about the will of the people.  You should respect it.
Lid Dem policy is to ignore democracy when its not convenient, like
their promise of removing university fees but agreeing to raise them.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Sure disappointing result last year, but in 2010 I win my council ward
with more than half the vote.
Good for you.  Stick to grass-mowing and fly-tipping.  What's 2010 got
to do with Brexit?
Quite, its all downhill from the ConDem pact onwards.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-05-13 10:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Funny, I thought giving people a choice was part of the democratic process.
It is. They were. Once in a generation. They chose.
Democracy is about the will of the people. You should respect it.
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.

but then

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Norman Wells
2018-05-13 11:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Funny, I thought giving people a choice was part of the democratic process.
It is. They were. Once in a generation. They chose.
Democracy is about the will of the people. You should respect it.
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote. And the decision. There always
has to be a cut-off point.

Besides, your constituency is not littlies who have just become old
enough to vote if not to shave, but Wigan, which voted nearly two to one
in favour of Brexit under two years ago. Before losing your deposit
there, you once hoped to represent them. Now you just want to usurp and
abandon them.

Er, just as you did as regards the very same littlies over student
tuition fees.

It's a bit rich, and late, to be cosying up to them now.
Fredxx
2018-05-13 11:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Funny, I thought giving people a choice was part of the democratic process.
It is.  They were.  Once in a generation.  They chose.
Democracy is about the will of the people.  You should respect it.
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum.  But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them.  But we've had the vote.  And the decision.  There always
has to be a cut-off point.
Besides, your constituency is not littlies who have just become old
enough to vote if not to shave, but Wigan, which voted nearly two to one
in favour of Brexit under two years ago.  Before losing your deposit
there, you once hoped to represent them.  Now you just want to usurp and
abandon them.
Er, just as you did as regards the very same littlies over student
tuition fees.
It's a bit rich, and late, to be cosying up to them now.
Its LibDem trait to represent any group that happens to be convenient at
the time.

Perhaps Clayton should ask students, given a choice between Remain and
abolishing tuition fees, which they feel is the most important.

He might then even represent a constituency that had a student
population rather than one which is firmly behind Brexit.
tim...
2018-05-13 13:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxx
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Funny, I thought giving people a choice was part of the democratic process.
It is. They were. Once in a generation. They chose.
Democracy is about the will of the people. You should respect it.
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote. And the decision. There always
has to be a cut-off point.
Besides, your constituency is not littlies who have just become old
enough to vote if not to shave, but Wigan, which voted nearly two to one
in favour of Brexit under two years ago. Before losing your deposit
there, you once hoped to represent them. Now you just want to usurp and
abandon them.
Er, just as you did as regards the very same littlies over student
tuition fees.
It's a bit rich, and late, to be cosying up to them now.
Its LibDem trait to represent any group that happens to be convenient at
the time.
They were the none of the above party for as long as I can remember

and they did very well at it

Until they made some policy mistakes under the coalition and now all of the
none of the above voters are looking for a new home

Eventually they will gravitate back to the LDs as there is no-one else with
the ground troops to prevail
Post by Fredxx
Perhaps Clayton should ask students, given a choice between Remain and
abolishing tuition fees, which they feel is the most important.
He might then even represent a constituency that had a student population
rather than one which is firmly behind Brexit.
PPC always have to have a shot at an unwinnable seat first. Isn't it one of
the rules

tim
Norman Wells
2018-05-13 16:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxx
Perhaps Clayton should ask students, given a choice between Remain and
abolishing tuition fees, which they feel is the most important.
Ask the electorate? Wash your mouth out with soap and water! They
might give you an answer you don't like. Then what do you do?
Post by Fredxx
He might then even represent a constituency that had a student
population rather than one which is firmly behind Brexit.
PPC always have to have a shot at an unwinnable seat first.  Isn't it
one of the rules
If that's the case, they should at least stop lying by posing with the
erstwhile leader, whatever his name was, and standing in front of
posters ludicrously saying 'Liberal Democrats Winning Here', when
they're only going to get 1.9% of the vote.

A bit of honesty wouldn't go amiss. As of course would a policy or two
that chime with the constituency electorate.

https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
harry
2018-05-13 17:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fredxx
Perhaps Clayton should ask students, given a choice between Remain and
abolishing tuition fees, which they feel is the most important.
Ask the electorate? Wash your mouth out with soap and water! They
might give you an answer you don't like. Then what do you do?
Post by Fredxx
He might then even represent a constituency that had a student
population rather than one which is firmly behind Brexit.
PPC always have to have a shot at an unwinnable seat first.  Isn't it
one of the rules
If that's the case, they should at least stop lying by posing with the
erstwhile leader, whatever his name was, and standing in front of
posters ludicrously saying 'Liberal Democrats Winning Here', when
they're only going to get 1.9% of the vote.
A bit of honesty wouldn't go amiss. As of course would a policy or two
that chime with the constituency electorate.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
A has been and a wanna be!
What a pathetic pair!
harry
2018-05-13 13:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Funny, I thought giving people a choice was part of the democratic process.
It is. They were. Once in a generation. They chose.
Democracy is about the will of the people. You should respect it.
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote. And the decision. There always
has to be a cut-off point.
Besides, your constituency is not littlies who have just become old
enough to vote if not to shave, but Wigan, which voted nearly two to one
in favour of Brexit under two years ago. Before losing your deposit
there, you once hoped to represent them. Now you just want to usurp and
abandon them.
Er, just as you did as regards the very same littlies over student
tuition fees.
It's a bit rich, and late, to be cosying up to them now.
Spot on Norman.
Here we have an example of someone without principles who just wants power and self aggrandisment.
He'd want to keep on having referendii until he got the result he wants.

ALL Lib Dems are people without principle.
pensive hamster
2018-05-13 17:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote.
Those students are a new generation of voters.

[...]
Norman Wells
2018-05-13 18:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote.
Those students are a new generation of voters.
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere, and some were bound to be
just on the wrong side (as they would see it) of the line. They'll
probably have their opportunity to vote in some future referendum, when
they're as old as many now who didn't have a chance to vote on the
matter before the 2016 referendum, ie anyone born after 1957.

They'll just have to wait their turn The world doesn't revolve around
them even if they are post-millennials with a sense of entitlement to
anything they want.
pensive hamster
2018-05-13 18:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote.
Those students are a new generation of voters.
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere,
Does there? Where? New generations come along all
the time, why should some generations be excluded?
Post by Norman Wells
and some were bound to be
just on the wrong side (as they would see it) of the line. They'll
probably have their opportunity to vote in some future referendum, when
they're as old as many now who didn't have a chance to vote on the
matter before the 2016 referendum, ie anyone born after 1957.
They'll just have to wait their turn The world doesn't revolve around
them even if they are post-millennials with a sense of entitlement to
anything they want.
Norman Wells
2018-05-13 18:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote.
Those students are a new generation of voters.
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere,
Does there? Where? New generations come along all
the time, why should some generations be excluded?
Unless you think there should be no minimum age limit for voting, yes
there does have to be a cut-off point somewhere.

How else can it work?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
and some were bound to be
just on the wrong side (as they would see it) of the line. They'll
probably have their opportunity to vote in some future referendum, when
they're as old as many now who didn't have a chance to vote on the
matter before the 2016 referendum, ie anyone born after 1957.
They'll just have to wait their turn The world doesn't revolve around
them even if they are post-millennials with a sense of entitlement to
anything they want.
pensive hamster
2018-05-13 18:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote.
Those students are a new generation of voters.
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere,
Does there? Where? New generations come along all
the time, why should some generations be excluded?
Unless you think there should be no minimum age limit for voting, yes
there does have to be a cut-off point somewhere.
We are talking about two different cut-off points now: the
minimum age limit for voting; and the minimum time before
new generations of voters are allowed to vote on Brexit.

You seem to favour something like 40 years for the latter.
Post by Norman Wells
How else can it work?
[...]
Norman Wells
2018-05-13 20:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote.
Those students are a new generation of voters.
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere,
Does there? Where? New generations come along all
the time, why should some generations be excluded?
Unless you think there should be no minimum age limit for voting, yes
there does have to be a cut-off point somewhere.
We are talking about two different cut-off points now: the
minimum age limit for voting; and the minimum time before
new generations of voters are allowed to vote on Brexit.
You seem to favour something like 40 years for the latter.
The bigger the decision, the greater the complexity, and the greater the
consequences, the longer it obviously has to be and should be between
decisions on the same matter. Marry in haste, repent at leisure as they
say.

Which shop to go to can be decided daily. Where to go for a meal out,
maybe once a week. Where to go on holiday, a couple of times a year.
Electing a government, once every 5 years. Whether to join or exit the
EU, not more than once in a generation.

Why is that unreasonable?

Anyway, you seem to be favouring allowing new voters a say in what's
already been decided as soon as they reach whatever age it is you think
appropriate. What age is that, how would it be done, and how often
should a new cohort be brought in?
pensive hamster
2018-05-14 17:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote.
Those students are a new generation of voters.
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere,
Does there? Where? New generations come along all
the time, why should some generations be excluded?
Unless you think there should be no minimum age limit for voting, yes
there does have to be a cut-off point somewhere.
We are talking about two different cut-off points now: the
minimum age limit for voting; and the minimum time before
new generations of voters are allowed to vote on Brexit.
You seem to favour something like 40 years for the latter.
The bigger the decision, the greater the complexity, and the greater the
consequences, the longer it obviously has to be and should be between
decisions on the same matter.
Obviously?? Obviously you are completely wrong. The greater the
complexity, and the greater the consequences, the greater the
importance of continually monitoring and reviewing the situation.

You wouldn't set a course to sea in a fully laden supertanker, for
example, without maintaining a constant watch for dangers.
Post by Norman Wells
Marry in haste, repent at leisure as they say.
Well, if you will marry in haste. Shotgun wedding, was it?
Post by Norman Wells
Which shop to go to can be decided daily. Where to go for a meal out,
maybe once a week. Where to go on holiday, a couple of times a year.
Electing a government, once every 5 years. Whether to join or exit the
EU, not more than once in a generation.
You have set the ship of state full steam ahead on course into an
area of unpredictable currents and hidden shoals, and you propose
popping back in 30 or 40 years time to check on progress?
Post by Norman Wells
Why is that unreasonable?
Because it is completely barmy.
Post by Norman Wells
Anyway, you seem to be favouring allowing new voters a say in what's
already been decided as soon as they reach whatever age it is you think
appropriate. What age is that, how would it be done, and how often
should a new cohort be brought in?
You earlier wrote:
"And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a
generation. It's what was promised."

I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal

'Student leaders ... argue in the letter to MPs that there are large
numbers of young people – estimated at 1.4 million – who were too
young to vote in the June 2016 EU referendum but who are now
eligible to do so, and that this group deserves a say.'
Norman Wells
2018-05-14 18:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Unless you think there should be no minimum age limit for voting, yes
there does have to be a cut-off point somewhere.
We are talking about two different cut-off points now: the
minimum age limit for voting; and the minimum time before
new generations of voters are allowed to vote on Brexit.
You seem to favour something like 40 years for the latter.
The bigger the decision, the greater the complexity, and the greater the
consequences, the longer it obviously has to be and should be between
decisions on the same matter.
Obviously?? Obviously you are completely wrong. The greater the
complexity, and the greater the consequences, the greater the
importance of continually monitoring and reviewing the situation.
So, do you monitor your marriage on a day-to-day basis? Or your
children? Or your move to New Zealand? Should we have a general
election every fortnight, or what?
Post by pensive hamster
You wouldn't set a course to sea in a fully laden supertanker, for
example, without maintaining a constant watch for dangers.
But you can't just turn it around. That's the thing they always say
about supertankers.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Marry in haste, repent at leisure as they say.
Well, if you will marry in haste. Shotgun wedding, was it?
Replace that, if you like, with having children. It's a big decision.
Once in a generation. One that will affect you, your family and your
children for decades to come. Biology will implement what you decide.

You can't change your mind after a year or two. You have to go with it.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Which shop to go to can be decided daily. Where to go for a meal out,
maybe once a week. Where to go on holiday, a couple of times a year.
Electing a government, once every 5 years. Whether to join or exit the
EU, not more than once in a generation.
You have set the ship of state full steam ahead on course into an
area of unpredictable currents and hidden shoals, and you propose
popping back in 30 or 40 years time to check on progress?
Yes. It takes an enormous amount of effort to set sail and to stop,
like having children.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Why is that unreasonable?
Because it is completely barmy.
Post by Norman Wells
Anyway, you seem to be favouring allowing new voters a say in what's
already been decided as soon as they reach whatever age it is you think
appropriate. What age is that, how would it be done, and how often
should a new cohort be brought in?
"And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a
generation. It's what was promised."
I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.
But they're not 'a generation'. They're the start of a generation that
won't be complete until, er, a generation's time. They're like those
who were born in 1958 or 1959, who were just too young to vote in the EU
referendum in 1975, and had to wait until 2016 before they were able to
vote on the matter.

There will always be a cut-off point.
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
'Student leaders ... argue in the letter to MPs that there are large
numbers of young people – estimated at 1.4 million – who were too
young to vote in the June 2016 EU referendum but who are now
eligible to do so, and that this group deserves a say.'
If voting in or out is simply an age-related thing, there will also be
1.4 million who voted Remain in the referendum but who are now a little
older and are sensible enough to vote Leave.
pensive hamster
2018-05-14 19:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.
But they're not 'a generation'.
The Electoral Commission describes them as a "new generation":

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-campaigns/the-new-generation-are-confident-voters,-but-call-for-further-modernisation-of-the-registration-process
11 Sep 2017
'The new generation are confident voters, but call for further
modernisation of the registration process

'Efforts to reach 16 and 17 year olds with information about
registration and voting are paying off, according to a new report
published by the Electoral Commission; however, these new
voters have high expectations about the further automation of the
registration process. ...'
Post by Norman Wells
They're the start of a generation that
won't be complete until, er, a generation's time. They're like those
who were born in 1958 or 1959, who were just too young to vote in the EU
referendum in 1975, and had to wait until 2016 before they were able to
vote on the matter.
[...]
Norman Wells
2018-05-14 20:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.
But they're not 'a generation'.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-campaigns/the-new-generation-are-confident-voters,-but-call-for-further-modernisation-of-the-registration-process
11 Sep 2017
'The new generation are confident voters, but call for further
modernisation of the registration process
'Efforts to reach 16 and 17 year olds with information about
registration and voting are paying off, according to a new report
published by the Electoral Commission; however, these new
voters have high expectations about the further automation of the
registration process. ...'
They're still not 'a generation'. It's a matter of English.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
They're the start of a generation that
won't be complete until, er, a generation's time. They're like those
who were born in 1958 or 1959, who were just too young to vote in the EU
referendum in 1975, and had to wait until 2016 before they were able to
vote on the matter.
[...]
pensive hamster
2018-05-15 18:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.
But they're not 'a generation'.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-campaigns/the-new-generation-are-confident-voters,-but-call-for-further-modernisation-of-the-registration-process
11 Sep 2017
'The new generation are confident voters, but call for further
modernisation of the registration process
'Efforts to reach 16 and 17 year olds with information about
registration and voting are paying off, according to a new report
published by the Electoral Commission; however, these new
voters have high expectations about the further automation of the
registration process. ...'
They're still not 'a generation'. It's a matter of English.
Are you claiming that the UK Electoral Commission is using
the word "generation" incorrectly in the sentence "The new
generation are confident voters, but call for further modernisation
of the registration process."?

The word "generation" can have different meanings in different
contexts, but OED definitions include:

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/77521?redirectedFrom=generation#eid

3.

a. All of the people born and living at about the same time,
regarded collectively. In later use frequently with implication
of shared cultural and social attitudes.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
They're the start of a generation that
won't be complete until, er, a generation's time. They're like those
who were born in 1958 or 1959, who were just too young to vote in the EU
referendum in 1975, and had to wait until 2016 before they were able to
vote on the matter.
[...]
Norman Wells
2018-05-15 20:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.
But they're not 'a generation'.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-campaigns/the-new-generation-are-confident-voters,-but-call-for-further-modernisation-of-the-registration-process
11 Sep 2017
'The new generation are confident voters, but call for further
modernisation of the registration process
'Efforts to reach 16 and 17 year olds with information about
registration and voting are paying off, according to a new report
published by the Electoral Commission; however, these new
voters have high expectations about the further automation of the
registration process. ...'
They're still not 'a generation'. It's a matter of English.
Are you claiming that the UK Electoral Commission is using
the word "generation" incorrectly in the sentence "The new
generation are confident voters, but call for further modernisation
of the registration process."?
Yes. What they mean is 'the new coming generation'.

Which won't be complete for another 30 years or so.
pensive hamster
2018-05-15 21:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.
But they're not 'a generation'.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-campaigns/the-new-generation-are-confident-voters,-but-call-for-further-modernisation-of-the-registration-process
11 Sep 2017
'The new generation are confident voters, but call for further
modernisation of the registration process
'Efforts to reach 16 and 17 year olds with information about
registration and voting are paying off, according to a new report
published by the Electoral Commission; however, these new
voters have high expectations about the further automation of the
registration process. ...'
They're still not 'a generation'. It's a matter of English.
Are you claiming that the UK Electoral Commission is using
the word "generation" incorrectly in the sentence "The new
generation are confident voters, but call for further modernisation
of the registration process."?
Yes. What they mean is 'the new coming generation'.
You're just adding words now. The Electoral Commission wrote
"The new generation are confident voters ...", and that's what they
mean.

They are not "new coming", they have already arrived, they are
already entitled to vote.
Post by Norman Wells
Which won't be complete for another 30 years or so.
Oh look, another newly added word. Did the referendum question
say anything about a "once in a complete generation decision"?
Norman Wells
2018-05-15 22:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.
But they're not 'a generation'.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-campaigns/the-new-generation-are-confident-voters,-but-call-for-further-modernisation-of-the-registration-process
11 Sep 2017
'The new generation are confident voters, but call for further
modernisation of the registration process
'Efforts to reach 16 and 17 year olds with information about
registration and voting are paying off, according to a new report
published by the Electoral Commission; however, these new
voters have high expectations about the further automation of the
registration process. ...'
They're still not 'a generation'. It's a matter of English.
Are you claiming that the UK Electoral Commission is using
the word "generation" incorrectly in the sentence "The new
generation are confident voters, but call for further modernisation
of the registration process."?
Yes. What they mean is 'the new coming generation'.
"The new generation are confident voters ...", and that's what they
mean.
They are not "new coming", they have already arrived, they are
already entitled to vote.
Post by Norman Wells
Which won't be complete for another 30 years or so.
Oh look, another newly added word. Did the referendum question
say anything about a "once in a complete generation decision"?
It said 'once in a generation'. You can try to twist it how you like,
but the clear meaning was 'not for another 30 years or so'.
pensive hamster
2018-05-15 22:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.
But they're not 'a generation'.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-campaigns/the-new-generation-are-confident-voters,-but-call-for-further-modernisation-of-the-registration-process
11 Sep 2017
'The new generation are confident voters, but call for further
modernisation of the registration process
'Efforts to reach 16 and 17 year olds with information about
registration and voting are paying off, according to a new report
published by the Electoral Commission; however, these new
voters have high expectations about the further automation of the
registration process. ...'
They're still not 'a generation'. It's a matter of English.
Are you claiming that the UK Electoral Commission is using
the word "generation" incorrectly in the sentence "The new
generation are confident voters, but call for further modernisation
of the registration process."?
Yes. What they mean is 'the new coming generation'.
"The new generation are confident voters ...", and that's what they
mean.
They are not "new coming", they have already arrived, they are
already entitled to vote.
Post by Norman Wells
Which won't be complete for another 30 years or so.
Oh look, another newly added word. Did the referendum question
say anything about a "once in a complete generation decision"?
It said 'once in a generation'. You can try to twist it how you like,
but the clear meaning was 'not for another 30 years or so'.
Then why didn't it say that? And did the Cameron government
have the power to limit future governments' freedom of decision
in regard to the possibility of revisiting the Brexit question?

Anyway, my main point was, as I posted earlier:

"I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation."
JNugent
2018-05-15 23:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.
But they're not 'a generation'.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-campaigns/the-new-generation-are-confident-voters,-but-call-for-further-modernisation-of-the-registration-process
11 Sep 2017
'The new generation are confident voters, but call for further
modernisation of the registration process
'Efforts to reach 16 and 17 year olds with information about
registration and voting are paying off, according to a new report
published by the Electoral Commission; however, these new
voters have high expectations about the further automation of the
registration process. ...'
They're still not 'a generation'. It's a matter of English.
Are you claiming that the UK Electoral Commission is using
the word "generation" incorrectly in the sentence "The new
generation are confident voters, but call for further modernisation
of the registration process."?
Yes. What they mean is 'the new coming generation'.
"The new generation are confident voters ...", and that's what they
mean.
They are not "new coming", they have already arrived, they are
already entitled to vote.
Post by Norman Wells
Which won't be complete for another 30 years or so.
Oh look, another newly added word. Did the referendum question
say anything about a "once in a complete generation decision"?
It said 'once in a generation'. You can try to twist it how you like,
but the clear meaning was 'not for another 30 years or so'.
Then why didn't it say that? And did the Cameron government
have the power to limit future governments' freedom of decision
in regard to the possibility of revisiting the Brexit question?
"I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation."
When a decision is made or re-made once in a generation (meaning every
generation), everyone will get at least one chance (and probably several
chances) to take part unless they die before reaching voting age.
Norman Wells
2018-05-16 07:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
"The new generation are confident voters ...", and that's what they
mean.
They are not "new coming", they have already arrived, they are
already entitled to vote.
Post by Norman Wells
Which won't be complete for another 30 years or so.
Oh look, another newly added word. Did the referendum question
say anything about a "once in a complete generation decision"?
It said 'once in a generation'. You can try to twist it how you like,
but the clear meaning was 'not for another 30 years or so'.
Then why didn't it say that?
It did. It said 'once in a generation'. It's what it means.
Post by pensive hamster
And did the Cameron government
have the power to limit future governments' freedom of decision
in regard to the possibility of revisiting the Brexit question?
No, of course not.
Post by pensive hamster
"I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise
And that's what it was, a promise.
Post by pensive hamster
must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation."
Same as anyone born between 1958 and 1998, none of whom could vote on
the issue until 2016.

There has to be a cut-off point for any vote. If not, how would it work?
pensive hamster
2018-05-16 17:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It said 'once in a generation'. You can try to twist it how you like,
but the clear meaning was 'not for another 30 years or so'.
Then why didn't it say that?
It did.
No it didn't.
Post by Norman Wells
It said 'once in a generation'.
Yes, that's what it said. It didn't say 'not for another 30 years or so'.
Post by Norman Wells
It's what it means.
So you claim.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
And did the Cameron government
have the power to limit future governments' freedom of decision
in regard to the possibility of revisiting the Brexit question?
No, of course not.
But you just claimed above that they did. You claimed that the
Cameron government's promise of 'once in a generation' means
that future governments won't revisit the Brexit question for
another 30 years or so.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
"I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise
And that's what it was, a promise.
Post by pensive hamster
must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation."
Same as anyone born between 1958 and 1998, none of whom could vote on
the issue until 2016.
There has to be a cut-off point for any vote. If not, how would it work?
As I keep telling you, "ongoing review ...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative

"... Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by
delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review,
checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the
people.[113][114][115][116]"

You will note that it doesn't say "once in a lifetime review ...".
harry
2018-05-16 17:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It said 'once in a generation'. You can try to twist it how you like,
but the clear meaning was 'not for another 30 years or so'.
Then why didn't it say that?
It did.
No it didn't.
Post by Norman Wells
It said 'once in a generation'.
Yes, that's what it said. It didn't say 'not for another 30 years or so'.
Post by Norman Wells
It's what it means.
So you claim.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
And did the Cameron government
have the power to limit future governments' freedom of decision
in regard to the possibility of revisiting the Brexit question?
No, of course not.
But you just claimed above that they did. You claimed that the
Cameron government's promise of 'once in a generation' means
that future governments won't revisit the Brexit question for
another 30 years or so.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
"I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise
And that's what it was, a promise.
Post by pensive hamster
must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation."
Same as anyone born between 1958 and 1998, none of whom could vote on
the issue until 2016.
There has to be a cut-off point for any vote. If not, how would it work?
As I keep telling you, "ongoing review ...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative
"... Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by
delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review,
checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the
people.[113][114][115][116]"
You will note that it doesn't say "once in a lifetime review ...".
Here's what it said.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
Ian Jackson
2018-05-16 18:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by harry
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It said 'once in a generation'. You can try to twist it how you like,
but the clear meaning was 'not for another 30 years or so'.
Then why didn't it say that?
It did.
No it didn't.
Post by Norman Wells
It said 'once in a generation'.
Yes, that's what it said. It didn't say 'not for another 30 years or so'.
Post by Norman Wells
It's what it means.
So you claim.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
And did the Cameron government
have the power to limit future governments' freedom of decision
in regard to the possibility of revisiting the Brexit question?
No, of course not.
But you just claimed above that they did. You claimed that the
Cameron government's promise of 'once in a generation' means
that future governments won't revisit the Brexit question for
another 30 years or so.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
"I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise
And that's what it was, a promise.
Post by pensive hamster
must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation."
Same as anyone born between 1958 and 1998, none of whom could vote on
the issue until 2016.
There has to be a cut-off point for any vote. If not, how would it work?
As I keep telling you, "ongoing review ...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative
"... Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by
delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review,
checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the
people.[113][114][115][116]"
You will note that it doesn't say "once in a lifetime review ...".
Here's what it said.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa
ds/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-t
o-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
It's totally irrelevant what Cameron (or anyone else) promised before
the referendum. Now that the true implications and complexities of
Brexit are becoming increasingly clear, then the British public should
be treated like grown-ups, and allowed to have a proper vote based on
the real facts - instead of on wildly optimistic expectations and
Project Fear predictions of doom and gloom. If we need another vote,
then we should have another vote. End of.
--
Ian
Fredxx
2018-05-16 19:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by harry
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
It said 'once in a generation'.  You can try to twist it how you
like,
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
but the clear meaning was 'not for another 30 years or so'.
Then why didn't it say that?
It did.
No it didn't.
Post by Norman Wells
It said 'once in a generation'.
Yes, that's what it said.  It didn't say 'not for another 30 years or
so'.
Post by Norman Wells
It's what it means.
So you claim.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
And did the Cameron government
have the power to limit future governments' freedom of decision
in regard to the possibility of revisiting the Brexit question?
No, of course not.
But you just claimed above that they did.  You claimed that the
Cameron government's promise of 'once in a generation' means
that future governments won't revisit the Brexit question for
another 30 years or so.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
"I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise
And that's what it was, a promise.
Post by pensive hamster
must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters.  Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation."
Same as anyone born between 1958 and 1998, none of whom could vote on
the issue until 2016.
There has to be a cut-off point for any vote.  If not, how would it
work?
As I keep telling you, "ongoing review ...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative
"... Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by
delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review,
checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the
people.[113][114][115][116]"
You will note that it doesn't say "once in a lifetime review ...".
Here's what it said.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa
ds/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-t
o-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
It's totally irrelevant what Cameron (or anyone else) promised before
the referendum.
It has every relevance. Stability is required and only an idiot would
advocate change every few years. A generation was promised, only bad
losers can't accept such a promise.
Post by Ian Jackson
Now that the true implications and complexities of
Brexit are becoming increasingly clear, then the British public should
be treated like grown-ups, and allowed to have a proper vote based on
the real facts - instead of on wildly optimistic expectations and
Project Fear predictions of doom and gloom. If we need another vote,
then we should have another vote. End of.
Grownups did vote, best get used to it. There is no need for a second
vote if the first one didn't go your way.
Ian Jackson
2018-05-16 19:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <pdhvf7$76c$***@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <***@nospam.com>
writes
Post by Fredxx
Now that the true implications and complexities of Brexit are
becoming increasingly clear, then the British public should be
treated like grown-ups, and allowed to have a proper vote based on
the real facts - instead of on wildly optimistic expectations and
Project Fear predictions of doom and gloom. If we need another vote,
then we should have another vote. End of.
Grownups did vote, best get used to it.
No. It's a case of "Look kiddies - you had your chance (especially you
lazy buggers who didn't bother to vote). Too bad you made the wrong
decision. You'll just have to suffer the consequences."
Post by Fredxx
There is no need for a second vote if the first one didn't go your
way.
Regardless of the consequences?
--
Ian
Fredxx
2018-05-16 19:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
Now that the true implications and complexities of  Brexit are
becoming increasingly clear, then the British public should  be
treated like grown-ups, and allowed to have a proper vote based on
the real facts - instead of on wildly optimistic expectations and
Project Fear predictions of doom and gloom. If we need another vote,
then we should have another vote. End of.
Grownups did vote, best get used to it.
No. It's a case of "Look kiddies - you had your chance (especially you
lazy buggers who didn't bother to vote). Too bad you made the wrong
decision. You'll just have to suffer the consequences."
NO, the right decision was made. Only sad losers will say it was the
wrong one. It's called the will of the people.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
There is no need for a second vote if the first one didn't go your way.
Regardless of the consequences?
That is a consequence when we're told it is a once in a generation
referendum.
JNugent
2018-05-16 22:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
Now that the true implications and complexities of  Brexit are
becoming increasingly clear, then the British public should  be
treated like grown-ups, and allowed to have a proper vote based on
the real facts - instead of on wildly optimistic expectations and
Project Fear predictions of doom and gloom. If we need another vote,
then we should have another vote. End of.
Grownups did vote, best get used to it.
No. It's a case of "Look kiddies - you had your chance (especially you
lazy buggers who didn't bother to vote). Too bad you made the wrong
decision. You'll just have to suffer the consequences."
That is what happens after every Labour victory at a GE.

Do you have any plans for second-guessing that too?
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Fredxx
There is no need for a second vote if the first one didn't go your way.
Regardless of the consequences?
MM
2018-05-20 08:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxx
Grownups did vote, best get used to it. There is no need for a second
vote if the first one didn't go your way.
Why not? Many more people are now entitled to vote since 23 June 2016.
Don't you want to know what they want? Are you afraid they'd make your
Brexit nonsense null and void?

MM
Norman Wells
2018-05-16 21:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by harry
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
It said 'once in a generation'.  You can try to twist it how you
like,
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
but the clear meaning was 'not for another 30 years or so'.
Then why didn't it say that?
It did.
No it didn't.
Post by Norman Wells
It said 'once in a generation'.
Yes, that's what it said.  It didn't say 'not for another 30 years or
so'.
Post by Norman Wells
It's what it means.
So you claim.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
And did the Cameron government
have the power to limit future governments' freedom of decision
in regard to the possibility of revisiting the Brexit question?
No, of course not.
But you just claimed above that they did.  You claimed that the
Cameron government's promise of 'once in a generation' means
that future governments won't revisit the Brexit question for
another 30 years or so.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
"I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise
And that's what it was, a promise.
Post by pensive hamster
must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters.  Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation."
Same as anyone born between 1958 and 1998, none of whom could vote on
the issue until 2016.
There has to be a cut-off point for any vote.  If not, how would it
work?
As I keep telling you, "ongoing review ...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative
"... Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by
delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review,
checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the
people.[113][114][115][116]"
You will note that it doesn't say "once in a lifetime review ...".
Here's what it said.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa
ds/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-t
o-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
It's totally irrelevant what Cameron (or anyone else) promised before
the referendum. Now that the true implications and complexities of
Brexit are becoming increasingly clear, then the British public should
be treated like grown-ups, and allowed to have a proper vote based on
the real facts - instead of on wildly optimistic expectations and
Project Fear predictions of doom and gloom. If we need another vote,
then we should have another vote. End of.
Well, we don't need another vote. We had one. And it was decisive.
pensive hamster
2018-05-16 22:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 22:56:22 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Well, we don't need another vote. We had one. And it was decisive.
No it wasn't. Unfinished business by a long way, according to
Nigel Farage's assessment.
Norman Wells
2018-05-16 22:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Well, we don't need another vote. We had one. And it was decisive.
No it wasn't. Unfinished business by a long way, according to
Nigel Farage's assessment.
Please yourself.

It's clear your understanding of plain English doesn't match mine.
Norman Wells
2018-05-16 21:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
It said 'once in a generation'. You can try to twist it how you like,
but the clear meaning was 'not for another 30 years or so'.
Then why didn't it say that?
It did.
No it didn't.
Post by Norman Wells
It said 'once in a generation'.
Yes, that's what it said. It didn't say 'not for another 30 years or so'.
Post by Norman Wells
It's what it means.
So you claim.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
And did the Cameron government
have the power to limit future governments' freedom of decision
in regard to the possibility of revisiting the Brexit question?
No, of course not.
But you just claimed above that they did. You claimed that the
Cameron government's promise of 'once in a generation' means
that future governments won't revisit the Brexit question for
another 30 years or so.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
"I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise
And that's what it was, a promise.
Post by pensive hamster
must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation."
Same as anyone born between 1958 and 1998, none of whom could vote on
the issue until 2016.
There has to be a cut-off point for any vote. If not, how would it work?
As I keep telling you, "ongoing review ...."
So, a new referendum every day then, or what? If you have any idea,
tell us how it would work.
pensive hamster
2018-05-16 22:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
There has to be a cut-off point for any vote. If not, how would it work?
As I keep telling you, "ongoing review ...."
So, a new referendum every day then, or what?
You seem to swing from one extreme to the other. No, not
a new referendum every day.
Post by Norman Wells
If you have any idea, tell us how it would work.
Review the situation, once the details of the final deal become
clear. You would also have to attempt to judge the public mood
at the time, Brexit fatigue might have set in, and there might not
be any enthusiasm for another referendum.
Norman Wells
2018-05-16 22:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
There has to be a cut-off point for any vote. If not, how would it work?
As I keep telling you, "ongoing review ...."
So, a new referendum every day then, or what?
You seem to swing from one extreme to the other. No, not
a new referendum every day.
Post by Norman Wells
If you have any idea, tell us how it would work.
Review the situation, once the details of the final deal become
clear. You would also have to attempt to judge the public mood
at the time, Brexit fatigue might have set in, and there might not
be any enthusiasm for another referendum.
Why just then? Why not every year, every month or every day? According
to you there'll be a new generation just bursting to vote.
MM
2018-05-20 08:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 15 May 2018 14:42:46 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.
But they're not 'a generation'.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-campaigns/the-new-generation-are-confident-voters,-but-call-for-further-modernisation-of-the-registration-process
11 Sep 2017
'The new generation are confident voters, but call for further
modernisation of the registration process
'Efforts to reach 16 and 17 year olds with information about
registration and voting are paying off, according to a new report
published by the Electoral Commission; however, these new
voters have high expectations about the further automation of the
registration process. ...'
They're still not 'a generation'. It's a matter of English.
Are you claiming that the UK Electoral Commission is using
the word "generation" incorrectly in the sentence "The new
generation are confident voters, but call for further modernisation
of the registration process."?
Yes. What they mean is 'the new coming generation'.
"The new generation are confident voters ...", and that's what they
mean.
They are not "new coming", they have already arrived, they are
already entitled to vote.
Post by Norman Wells
Which won't be complete for another 30 years or so.
Oh look, another newly added word. Did the referendum question
say anything about a "once in a complete generation decision"?
Or even: "once in a complete coming generation decision".

MM
pensive hamster
2018-05-14 19:24:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 14 May 2018 19:10:50 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
[...]
Should we have a general election every fortnight, or what?
As I keep trying to explain to you, in this country we have
a parliamentary democracy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative

"... Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by
delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review,
checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the
people.[113][114][115][116]"

You will note that it doesn't say "once in a lifetime review ...".

There are debates five days a week, and PMQs on Wednesdays .

[...]
Norman Wells
2018-05-14 20:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Should we have a general election every fortnight, or what?
As I keep trying to explain to you, in this country we have
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative
"... Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by
delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review,
checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the
people.[113][114][115][116]"
You will note that it doesn't say "once in a lifetime review ...".
There are debates five days a week, and PMQs on Wednesdays .
We still make a decision only once every 5 years.

You can review something as often as you like, even continuously, and
much good may it do you. The only thing that actually matters is the
decision, and the time between deicisions has been set by law.
MM
2018-05-15 11:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Should we have a general election every fortnight, or what?
As I keep trying to explain to you, in this country we have
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative
"... Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by
delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review,
checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the
people.[113][114][115][116]"
You will note that it doesn't say "once in a lifetime review ...".
There are debates five days a week, and PMQs on Wednesdays .
We still make a decision only once every 5 years.
Except when people like Theresa May decide to hold a snap general
election before the 5 years are up.

MM
pensive hamster
2018-05-15 18:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Should we have a general election every fortnight, or what?
As I keep trying to explain to you, in this country we have
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Representative
"... Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by
delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review,
checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the
people.[113][114][115][116]"
You will note that it doesn't say "once in a lifetime review ...".
There are debates five days a week, and PMQs on Wednesdays .
We still make a decision only once every 5 years.
Parliament makes decisions on various matters much more
frequently than that.
Post by Norman Wells
You can review something as often as you like, even continuously, and
much good may it do you. The only thing that actually matters is the
decision, and the time between deicisions has been set by law.
Your awareness of reality seems increasingly tenuous.

Again, Parliament can make the decision, on a 2/3rds majority,
as they did in 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011

'The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (c. 14) is an Act of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom that received Royal Assent
on 15 September 2011, introducing fixed-term elections to the
Westminster parliament for the first time. Under the provisions
of the Act, parliamentary general elections must be held every
five years, beginning in 2015. However, a vote of no-confidence
in the government, or a two-thirds majority vote in the House of
Commons, can still trigger a general election at any time.'

------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011#2017_general_election

2017 general election
Further information: United Kingdom general election, 2017

'On 18 April 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May announced her
intention to call a general election for 8 June 2017, bringing the
United Kingdom's 56th Parliament to an end after two years and
32 days. She required two-thirds of the Commons (434 or more
MPs) to support the motion to allow it to pass.[13] Jeremy Corbyn,
the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour Party indicated he
was in support of an election. The motion was passed the
following day by 522 votes to 13 votes.[14]'
tim...
2018-05-15 08:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Unless you think there should be no minimum age limit for voting, yes
there does have to be a cut-off point somewhere.
We are talking about two different cut-off points now: the
minimum age limit for voting; and the minimum time before
new generations of voters are allowed to vote on Brexit.
You seem to favour something like 40 years for the latter.
The bigger the decision, the greater the complexity, and the greater the
consequences, the longer it obviously has to be and should be between
decisions on the same matter.
Obviously?? Obviously you are completely wrong. The greater the
complexity, and the greater the consequences, the greater the
importance of continually monitoring and reviewing the situation.
So, do you monitor your marriage on a day-to-day basis? Or your children?
Or your move to New Zealand? Should we have a general election every
fortnight, or what?
Post by pensive hamster
You wouldn't set a course to sea in a fully laden supertanker, for
example, without maintaining a constant watch for dangers.
But you can't just turn it around. That's the thing they always say about
supertankers.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Marry in haste, repent at leisure as they say.
Well, if you will marry in haste. Shotgun wedding, was it?
Replace that, if you like, with having children. It's a big decision.
Once in a generation. One that will affect you, your family and your
children for decades to come. Biology will implement what you decide.
You can't change your mind after a year or two. You have to go with it.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Which shop to go to can be decided daily. Where to go for a meal out,
maybe once a week. Where to go on holiday, a couple of times a year.
Electing a government, once every 5 years. Whether to join or exit the
EU, not more than once in a generation.
You have set the ship of state full steam ahead on course into an
area of unpredictable currents and hidden shoals, and you propose
popping back in 30 or 40 years time to check on progress?
Yes. It takes an enormous amount of effort to set sail and to stop, like
having children.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Why is that unreasonable?
Because it is completely barmy.
Post by Norman Wells
Anyway, you seem to be favouring allowing new voters a say in what's
already been decided as soon as they reach whatever age it is you think
appropriate. What age is that, how would it be done, and how often
should a new cohort be brought in?
"And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a
generation. It's what was promised."
I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.
But they're not 'a generation'. They're the start of a generation that
won't be complete until, er, a generation's time. They're like those who
were born in 1958 or 1959, who were just too young to vote in the EU
referendum in 1975, and had to wait until 2016 before they were able to
vote on the matter.
like me

not that I would have voted no in 75, if I had had the chance

tim
JNugent
2018-05-14 20:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote.
Those students are a new generation of voters.
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere,
Does there? Where? New generations come along all
the time, why should some generations be excluded?
Unless you think there should be no minimum age limit for voting, yes
there does have to be a cut-off point somewhere.
We are talking about two different cut-off points now: the
minimum age limit for voting; and the minimum time before
new generations of voters are allowed to vote on Brexit.
You seem to favour something like 40 years for the latter.
The bigger the decision, the greater the complexity, and the greater the
consequences, the longer it obviously has to be and should be between
decisions on the same matter.
Obviously?? Obviously you are completely wrong. The greater the
complexity, and the greater the consequences, the greater the
importance of continually monitoring and reviewing the situation.
You wouldn't set a course to sea in a fully laden supertanker, for
example, without maintaining a constant watch for dangers.
Post by Norman Wells
Marry in haste, repent at leisure as they say.
Well, if you will marry in haste. Shotgun wedding, was it?
Post by Norman Wells
Which shop to go to can be decided daily. Where to go for a meal out,
maybe once a week. Where to go on holiday, a couple of times a year.
Electing a government, once every 5 years. Whether to join or exit the
EU, not more than once in a generation.
You have set the ship of state full steam ahead on course into an
area of unpredictable currents and hidden shoals, and you propose
popping back in 30 or 40 years time to check on progress?
Post by Norman Wells
Why is that unreasonable?
Because it is completely barmy.
Post by Norman Wells
Anyway, you seem to be favouring allowing new voters a say in what's
already been decided as soon as they reach whatever age it is you think
appropriate. What age is that, how would it be done, and how often
should a new cohort be brought in?
"And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a
generation. It's what was promised."
I'm just pointing out that the once in a generation promise must
seem rather hollow to the new generation of voters. Once in a
generation, as long as you are not in the wrong generation.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
'Student leaders ... argue in the letter to MPs that there are large
numbers of young people – estimated at 1.4 million – who were too
young to vote in the June 2016 EU referendum but who are now
eligible to do so, and that this group deserves a say.'
I want my vote to count in the 1945 General Election (which was some
years before I was born). And the 1950 poll, please.

And come to think of it, I never got to vote in the October 1974 GE
either (due to a cock-up by the person who had the electoral
registration form for the address where I was then living) and so I'd
like that one re-run as well, please.
JNugent
2018-05-13 23:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote.
Those students are a new generation of voters.
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere,
Does there? Where? New generations come along all
the time, why should some generations be excluded?
Unless you think there should be no minimum age limit for voting, yes
there does have to be a cut-off point somewhere.
We are talking about two different cut-off points now: the
minimum age limit for voting; and the minimum time before
new generations of voters are allowed to vote on Brexit.
You're right in a sense: we should have had a referendum on leaving the
EU when the EU evolved from the Common Market and when powers were being
given away to that EU. That was quite a while back.
Post by pensive hamster
You seem to favour something like 40 years for the latter.
Post by Norman Wells
How else can it work?
[...]
Yellow
2018-05-14 14:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote.
Those students are a new generation of voters.
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere,
Does there? Where? New generations come along all
the time, why should some generations be excluded?
Unless you think there should be no minimum age limit for voting, yes
there does have to be a cut-off point somewhere.
We are talking about two different cut-off points now: the
minimum age limit for voting; and the minimum time before
new generations of voters are allowed to vote on Brexit.
You're right in a sense: we should have had a referendum on leaving the
EU when the EU evolved from the Common Market and when powers were being
given away to that EU. That was quite a while back.
That is exactly when we should of had it, but better late than never.
harry
2018-05-14 06:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote.
Those students are a new generation of voters.
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere, and some were bound to be
just on the wrong side (as they would see it) of the line. They'll
probably have their opportunity to vote in some future referendum, when
they're as old as many now who didn't have a chance to vote on the
matter before the 2016 referendum, ie anyone born after 1957.
They'll just have to wait their turn The world doesn't revolve around
them even if they are post-millennials with a sense of entitlement to
anything they want.
Don't worry Norman. The EUSSR is headed for disaster and won't exist soon.
Especially without our money.

The populations of many countries want out.
harry
2018-05-14 06:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by harry
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The will of the people can change, that's why we get different governments.
And it's why we can have another referendum. But not for a generation.
It's what was promised.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
but then
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal
Good for them. But we've had the vote.
Those students are a new generation of voters.
There has to be a cut-off point somewhere, and some were bound to be
just on the wrong side (as they would see it) of the line. They'll
probably have their opportunity to vote in some future referendum, when
they're as old as many now who didn't have a chance to vote on the
matter before the 2016 referendum, ie anyone born after 1957.
They'll just have to wait their turn The world doesn't revolve around
them even if they are post-millennials with a sense of entitlement to
anything they want.
Don't worry Norman. The EUSSR is headed for disaster and won't exist soon.
Post by harry
Especially without our money.
The populations of many countries want out.
The creation of the Fourth Reich was done very sneakily in order to baffle us all.
Ian Jackson
2018-05-14 10:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by harry
Don't worry Norman. The EUSSR is headed for disaster and won't exist soon.
Post by harry
Especially without our money.
The populations of many countries want out.
Any idea of which countries - and what proportion of their populations?
Post by harry
The creation of the Fourth Reich was done very sneakily in order to baffle us all.
--
Ian
harry
2018-05-16 17:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by harry
Don't worry Norman. The EUSSR is headed for disaster and won't exist soon.
Post by harry
Especially without our money.
The populations of many countries want out.
Any idea of which countries - and what proportion of their populations?
Post by harry
The creation of the Fourth Reich was done very sneakily in order to baffle us all.
--
Ian
The ones with 10-50% of youth unemployment.
pensive hamster
2018-05-13 17:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, 13 May 2018 12:27:35 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
your constituency is not littlies who have just become old
enough to vote if not to shave, but Wigan, which voted nearly two to one
in favour of Brexit under two years ago. Before losing your deposit
there, you once hoped to represent them. Now you just want to usurp and
abandon them.
But what happens if the people of Wigan start to think they
have been conned and sold a pup by a cabal of the elite?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/peter-mandelson-brexit-theresa-may-political-crisis-second-referendum-peoples-vote-a8347521.html
12 May 2018

“A cabal of newspaper owners and editors have driven anti-European
feeling in Britain over a period of 25 years. They have coordinated
their actions throughout, with a very well off, pretty privileged, cosseted
elite, who broadly speaking, hate liberal politics, dislike government and
oppose regulation in the public interest.

“These are the people whose whole crusade has been about taking
Britain out of the European Union and what is striking about it is their
own economic interests and political views are at odds with so many
people who voted for it.”
Norman Wells
2018-05-13 18:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
your constituency is not littlies who have just become old
enough to vote if not to shave, but Wigan, which voted nearly two to one
in favour of Brexit under two years ago. Before losing your deposit
there, you once hoped to represent them. Now you just want to usurp and
abandon them.
But what happens if the people of Wigan start to think they
have been conned and sold a pup by a cabal of the elite?
They can think what they like. Maybe they'll even get a vote sometime
in a referendum. But not for at least a generation, as we were promised.
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/peter-mandelson-brexit-theresa-may-political-crisis-second-referendum-peoples-vote-a8347521.html
12 May 2018
“A cabal of newspaper owners and editors have driven anti-European
feeling in Britain over a period of 25 years. They have coordinated
their actions throughout, with a very well off, pretty privileged, cosseted
elite, who broadly speaking, hate liberal politics, dislike government and
oppose regulation in the public interest.
“These are the people whose whole crusade has been about taking
Britain out of the European Union and what is striking about it is their
own economic interests and political views are at odds with so many
people who voted for it.”
It's up to you whether you believe conspiracy theories. It was up to
the Remain campaign to argue it if they thought it was the case. I
don't know if they did, but it doesn't matter. We had the discussion
and argument for 100 days. After all that, we decided to leave the EU.
That's an end to it.
pensive hamster
2018-05-13 18:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/peter-mandelson-brexit-theresa-may-political-crisis-second-referendum-peoples-vote-a8347521.html
12 May 2018
“A cabal of newspaper owners and editors have driven anti-European
feeling in Britain over a period of 25 years. They have coordinated
their actions throughout, with a very well off, pretty privileged, cosseted
elite, who broadly speaking, hate liberal politics, dislike government and
oppose regulation in the public interest.
“These are the people whose whole crusade has been about taking
Britain out of the European Union and what is striking about it is their
own economic interests and political views are at odds with so many
people who voted for it.”
It's up to you whether you believe conspiracy theories.
"Politics is nothing but conspiracies."
~ Gore Vidal
Post by Norman Wells
It was up to
the Remain campaign to argue it if they thought it was the case. I
don't know if they did, but it doesn't matter. We had the discussion
and argument for 100 days. After all that, we decided to leave the EU.
That's an end to it.
harry
2018-05-14 06:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
your constituency is not littlies who have just become old
enough to vote if not to shave, but Wigan, which voted nearly two to one
in favour of Brexit under two years ago. Before losing your deposit
there, you once hoped to represent them. Now you just want to usurp and
abandon them.
But what happens if the people of Wigan start to think they
have been conned and sold a pup by a cabal of the elite?
They can think what they like. Maybe they'll even get a vote sometime
in a referendum. But not for at least a generation, as we were promised.
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/peter-mandelson-brexit-theresa-may-political-crisis-second-referendum-peoples-vote-a8347521.html
12 May 2018
“A cabal of newspaper owners and editors have driven anti-European
feeling in Britain over a period of 25 years. They have coordinated
their actions throughout, with a very well off, pretty privileged, cosseted
elite, who broadly speaking, hate liberal politics, dislike government and
oppose regulation in the public interest.
“These are the people whose whole crusade has been about taking
Britain out of the European Union and what is striking about it is their
own economic interests and political views are at odds with so many
people who voted for it.”
It's up to you whether you believe conspiracy theories. It was up to
the Remain campaign to argue it if they thought it was the case. I
don't know if they did, but it doesn't matter. We had the discussion
and argument for 100 days. After all that, we decided to leave the EU.
That's an end to it.
The EUSSR has form.
They like to keep having referendii until they get the result they want.
Ian Jackson
2018-05-14 10:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by harry
The EUSSR has form.
They like to keep having referendii until they get the result they want.
I don't think your average ancient Roman would have known the word
'referendum' - let alone what its faux plural was.
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2018-05-14 11:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by harry
The EUSSR has form.
They like to keep having referendii until they get the result they want.
I don't think your average ancient Roman would have known the word
'referendum' - let alone what its faux plural was.
Well, the word comes from the Latin 'referre' meaning to bring back, so
they wouldn't have had to try too hard.

As for the plural in Latin it would end in -a, ie referenda. The
singular would have to be referendus (which it isn't) for the plural to
be end in -i.
Ian Jackson
2018-05-14 12:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by harry
The EUSSR has form.
They like to keep having referendii until they get the result they want.
I don't think your average ancient Roman would have known the word
'referendum' - let alone what its faux plural was.
Well, the word comes from the Latin 'referre' meaning to bring back, so
they wouldn't have had to try too hard.
I doubt if the Romans were in the habit of frequently asking the
Plebeians* what they really wanted. If so. it's unlikely that they would
have felt the need to coin a special word for it. 'Referendum' is
probably a much later scholarly invention.
[*Members of the lower social classes]
Post by Norman Wells
As for the plural in Latin it would end in -a, ie referenda. The
singular would have to be referendus (which it isn't) for the plural to
be end in -i.
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and would
not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.

Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning as how we
use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship whatever).

Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to the words
we use now, it is essentially pretentious and inaccurate to do so. My
hates include museum/musea, stadium/stadia, forum/fora (although this IS
arguably reasonably legitimate) and referendum/referenda - although I
WOULD be happy with the last one if we were allowed to have a second
one.
--
Ian
tim...
2018-05-14 14:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by harry
The EUSSR has form.
They like to keep having referendii until they get the result they want.
I don't think your average ancient Roman would have known the word
'referendum' - let alone what its faux plural was.
Well, the word comes from the Latin 'referre' meaning to bring back, so
they wouldn't have had to try too hard.
I doubt if the Romans were in the habit of frequently asking the
Plebeians* what they really wanted. If so. it's unlikely that they would
have felt the need to coin a special word for it. 'Referendum' is probably
a much later scholarly invention.
[*Members of the lower social classes]
Post by Norman Wells
As for the plural in Latin it would end in -a, ie referenda. The singular
would have to be referendus (which it isn't) for the plural to be end
in -i.
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and would not
be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning as how we
use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to the words we
use now, it is essentially pretentious and inaccurate to do so. My hates
include museum/musea, stadium/stadia, forum/fora (although this IS
arguably reasonably legitimate) and referendum/referenda - although I
WOULD be happy with the last one if we were allowed to have a second one.
I don't think I have ever seen anyone use "musea"

tim
Ian Jackson
2018-05-14 15:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
I don't think I have ever seen anyone use "musea"
Not in these erudite parts (possibly because it just LOOKS wrong) - but
I've certainly have on the radio/TV.
--
Ian
JNugent
2018-05-14 15:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Post by harry
The EUSSR has form.
They like to keep having referendii until they get the result they want.
 I don't think your average ancient Roman would have known the word
'referendum' - let alone what its faux plural was.
Well, the word comes from the Latin 'referre' meaning to bring back,
so they wouldn't have had to try too hard.
I doubt if the Romans were in the habit of frequently asking the
Plebeians* what they really wanted. If so. it's unlikely that they
would have felt the need to coin a special word for it. 'Referendum'
is probably a much later scholarly invention.
[*Members of the lower social classes]
Post by Norman Wells
As for the plural in Latin it would end in -a, ie referenda.  The
singular would have to be referendus (which it isn't) for the plural
to be end in -i.
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and would
not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning as how
we use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to the
words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and inaccurate to do
so. My hates include museum/musea, stadium/stadia, forum/fora
(although this IS arguably reasonably legitimate) and
referendum/referenda - although I WOULD be happy with the last one if
we were allowed to have a second one.
I don't think I have ever seen anyone use "musea"
And there can't be many occasions when one needs to convey the idea of
more than one forum at a time (except perhaps figuratively).
Ian Jackson
2018-05-14 16:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by tim...
I don't think I have ever seen anyone use "musea"
And there can't be many occasions when one needs to convey the idea of
more than one forum at a time (except perhaps figuratively).
Outside our Usenet 'newsgroups' there is actually an alternative
universe. Don't you know that the internet is absolutely full of
'forums' - or, if you're trying to impress people with your smattering
of Latin, 'fora'?
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2018-05-14 14:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to the words
we use now, it is essentially pretentious and inaccurate to do so. My
hates include museum/musea, stadium/stadia, forum/fora (although this IS
arguably reasonably legitimate) and referendum/referenda - although I
WOULD be happy with the last one if we were allowed to have a second one.
Even if not for a generatium?
Ian Jackson
2018-05-14 15:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to the
words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and inaccurate to do
so. My hates include museum/musea, stadium/stadia, forum/fora
(although this IS arguably reasonably legitimate) and
referendum/referenda - although I WOULD be happy with the last one if
we were allowed to have a second one.
Even if not for a generatium?
Generatia are far too long.
--
Ian
pamela
2018-05-15 15:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and
would not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning as
how we use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship
whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to the
words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and inaccurate to
do so. My hates include museum/musea, stadium/stadia, forum/fora
(although this IS arguably reasonably legitimate) and
referendum/referenda - although I WOULD be happy with the last one
if we were allowed to have a second one.
It's also pretentious when writers, such as American technical authors,
treat the word "data" as plural.
JNugent
2018-05-15 16:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and
would not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning as
how we use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship
whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to the
words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and inaccurate to
do so. My hates include museum/musea, stadium/stadia, forum/fora
(although this IS arguably reasonably legitimate) and
referendum/referenda - although I WOULD be happy with the last one
if we were allowed to have a second one.
It's also pretentious when writers, such as American technical authors,
treat the word "data" as plural.
Surely it is always a plural, and always used as the plural?
pamela
2018-05-15 18:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and
would not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning
as how we use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship
whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to
the words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and
inaccurate to do so. My hates include museum/musea,
stadium/stadia, forum/fora (although this IS arguably reasonably
legitimate) and referendum/referenda - although I WOULD be happy
with the last one if we were allowed to have a second one.
It's also pretentious when writers, such as American technical
authors, treat the word "data" as plural.
Surely it is always a plural, and always used as the plural?
"Your data are corrupted". Ugh!
JNugent
2018-05-15 23:20:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and
would not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning
as how we use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship
whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to
the words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and
inaccurate to do so. My hates include museum/musea,
stadium/stadia, forum/fora (although this IS arguably reasonably
legitimate) and referendum/referenda - although I WOULD be happy
with the last one if we were allowed to have a second one.
It's also pretentious when writers, such as American technical
authors, treat the word "data" as plural.
Surely it is always a plural, and always used as the plural?
"Your data are corrupted". Ugh!
Data or files?
pamela
2018-05-16 11:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and
would not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning
as how we use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship
whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to
the words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and
inaccurate to do so. My hates include museum/musea,
stadium/stadia, forum/fora (although this IS arguably reasonably
legitimate) and referendum/referenda - although I WOULD be happy
with the last one if we were allowed to have a second one.
It's also pretentious when writers, such as American technical
authors, treat the word "data" as plural.
Surely it is always a plural, and always used as the plural?
"Your data are corrupted". Ugh!
Data or files?
"Your data are corrupted" is the usage I am referring to.

Files are not mentioned.
JNugent
2018-05-16 15:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and
would not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning
as how we use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship
whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to
the words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and
inaccurate to do so. My hates include museum/musea,
stadium/stadia, forum/fora (although this IS arguably reasonably
legitimate) and referendum/referenda - although I WOULD be happy
with the last one if we were allowed to have a second one.
It's also pretentious when writers, such as American technical
authors, treat the word "data" as plural.
Surely it is always a plural, and always used as the plural?
"Your data are corrupted". Ugh!
Data or files?
"Your data are corrupted" is the usage I am referring to.
Files are not mentioned.
Yes, but the corruption happens to files. Data is/are an intangible
property of the files.
pamela
2018-05-19 14:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions,
and would not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same
meaning as how we use it today (sometimes bearing little
relationship whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin
to the words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and
inaccurate to do so. My hates include museum/musea,
stadium/stadia, forum/fora (although this IS arguably
reasonably legitimate) and referendum/referenda - although I
WOULD be happy with the last one if we were allowed to have
a second one.
It's also pretentious when writers, such as American
technical authors, treat the word "data" as plural.
Surely it is always a plural, and always used as the plural?
"Your data are corrupted". Ugh!
Data or files?
"Your data are corrupted" is the usage I am referring to.
Files are not mentioned.
Yes, but the corruption happens to files. Data is/are an
intangible property of the files.
That's sophistry and does not describe the basis for such usage. As
I said, I find it pretentious when writers, such as American
technical authors, treat the word "data" as plural.

Magazines like Datamation used to insist on it in their style guide
and this author seems to approve.

"In professionalism as in programming, prescriptivity,
particularity, perspicuity, and profundity should be paramount."
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1621011/?part=1
JNugent
2018-05-19 14:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions,
and would not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same
meaning as how we use it today (sometimes bearing little
relationship whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin
to the words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and
inaccurate to do so. My hates include museum/musea,
stadium/stadia, forum/fora (although this IS arguably
reasonably legitimate) and referendum/referenda - although I
WOULD be happy with the last one if we were allowed to have
a second one.
It's also pretentious when writers, such as American
technical authors, treat the word "data" as plural.
Surely it is always a plural, and always used as the plural?
"Your data are corrupted". Ugh!
Data or files?
"Your data are corrupted" is the usage I am referring to.
Files are not mentioned.
Yes, but the corruption happens to files. Data is/are an
intangible property of the files.
That's sophistry and does not describe the basis for such usage.
It is not sophistry (I'd look that up if I were you) and of course it
doesn't describe anything. It wasn't meant to and I do not purport to.
Post by pamela
As
I said, I find it pretentious when writers, such as American
technical authors, treat the word "data" as plural.
<shrug>

Technical people do find uses for "datum", so need a way to distinguish
the singular and plural.
Post by pamela
Magazines like Datamation used to insist on it in their style guide
and this author seems to approve.
"In professionalism as in programming, prescriptivity,
particularity, perspicuity, and profundity should be paramount."
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1621011/?part=1
Does that mean conforming with the language skills of people who would
prefer the language to be something it isn't?
Ian Jackson
2018-05-19 14:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Technical people do find uses for "datum", so need a way to distinguish
the singular and plural.
'Datum' usually refers to a reference point, and not a single piece of
'data'.
--
Ian
pamela
2018-05-19 15:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by JNugent
Technical people do find uses for "datum", so need a way to
distinguish the singular and plural.
'Datum' usually refers to a reference point, and not a single
piece of 'data'.
I find it pretentious when writers, such as American technical
authors, treat the word "data" as plural. They don't seem able to
accept it as a collective noun.
MM
2018-05-20 08:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and
would not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning
as how we use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship
whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to
the words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and
inaccurate to do so. My hates include museum/musea,
stadium/stadia, forum/fora (although this IS arguably reasonably
legitimate) and referendum/referenda - although I WOULD be happy
with the last one if we were allowed to have a second one.
It's also pretentious when writers, such as American technical
authors, treat the word "data" as plural.
Surely it is always a plural, and always used as the plural?
"Your data are corrupted". Ugh!
Data or files?
Files of data?

MM

MM
2018-05-20 08:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and
would not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning
as how we use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship
whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to
the words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and
inaccurate to do so. My hates include museum/musea,
stadium/stadia, forum/fora (although this IS arguably reasonably
legitimate) and referendum/referenda - although I WOULD be happy
with the last one if we were allowed to have a second one.
It's also pretentious when writers, such as American technical
authors, treat the word "data" as plural.
Surely it is always a plural, and always used as the plural?
"Your data are corrupted". Ugh!
In Nugent's world, people everywhere are saying:

"Let's look at the data to see what they say."

Outside his world:

"Let's look at the data to see what it says."

MM
Norman Wells
2018-05-15 16:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and
would not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning as
how we use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship
whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to the
words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and inaccurate to
do so. My hates include museum/musea, stadium/stadia, forum/fora
(although this IS arguably reasonably legitimate) and
referendum/referenda - although I WOULD be happy with the last one
if we were allowed to have a second one.
It's also pretentious when writers, such as American technical authors,
treat the word "data" as plural.
It is plural, but it's usually used as a mass noun, like 'information',
which takes a singular verb. The singular 'datum' has more or less
become archaic in contemporary English.

I do hate 'criteria' and 'phenomena' being used as singular though.
Ian Jackson
2018-05-15 19:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and
would not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning as
how we use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship
whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to the
words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and inaccurate to
do so. My hates include museum/musea, stadium/stadia, forum/fora
(although this IS arguably reasonably legitimate) and
referendum/referenda - although I WOULD be happy with the last one
if we were allowed to have a second one.
It's also pretentious when writers, such as American technical authors,
treat the word "data" as plural.
It is plural, but it's usually used as a mass noun, like 'information',
which takes a singular verb. The singular 'datum' has more or less
become archaic in contemporary English.
In Latin, 'datum' is essentially the past participle of the verb 'dare'
- to give. It can serve a noun, ie 'that which is (or has been) given',
and the plural is 'data' ('the things that have been given'). As stated
above, we generally use it today as a synonym for the collective noun
'information' (I doubt if the ancient Romans would have). There's little
justification for referring to it as a plural - although I suppose in
the sense of 'figures', it is.
Post by Norman Wells
I do hate 'criteria' and 'phenomena' being used as singular though.
And 'bacteria'. On a Radio 4 programme about the use of language
(Michael Risen?) I heard a medical person justifying the use of the
singular 'bacteria' - simply because the medical profession didn't know
any better!
--
Ian
harry
2018-05-16 17:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Many present-day Latin-sounding words are later inventions, and
would not be part of an ancient Roman's vocabulary.
Even when the word did exist, it did not have the same meaning as
how we use it today (sometimes bearing little relationship
whatever).
Unless there is a genuine need to apply the rules of Latin to the
words we use now, it is essentially pretentious and inaccurate to
do so. My hates include museum/musea, stadium/stadia, forum/fora
(although this IS arguably reasonably legitimate) and
referendum/referenda - although I WOULD be happy with the last one
if we were allowed to have a second one.
It's also pretentious when writers, such as American technical authors,
treat the word "data" as plural.
It is plural, but it's usually used as a mass noun, like 'information',
which takes a singular verb. The singular 'datum' has more or less
become archaic in contemporary English.
I do hate 'criteria' and 'phenomena' being used as singular though.
OR sheep?
pamela
2018-05-15 15:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ophelia
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/
Nothing to hide
6 Stanton Gardens, Manchester, M20 2PT
Silverback Systems Limited
Shacked up with
Tel.0161 446 2444
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a
particular interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the
European Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK by
Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having
pathetic pot shots at me personally, however leave my partner out
of this.
PS I still have all my teeth except one and third wisdom teeth - what about you?
Mark, if I obtain the IP address of the forger from the sysop running
the news server then would you be interested in knowing it?
Fredxx
2018-05-15 19:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ophelia
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/
Nothing to hide
6 Stanton Gardens, Manchester, M20 2PT
Silverback Systems Limited
Shacked up with
Tel.0161 446 2444
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a
particular interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the
European Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK by
Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having
pathetic pot shots at me personally, however leave my partner out
of this.
PS I still have all my teeth except one and third wisdom teeth - what about you?
Mark, if I obtain the IP address of the forger from the sysop running
the news server then would you be interested in knowing it?
I think we all would. Why just discuss this with Mark? Is there
something you're trying to prove?
pamela
2018-05-16 11:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ophelia
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/
Nothing to hide
6 Stanton Gardens, Manchester, M20 2PT
Silverback Systems Limited
Shacked up with
Tel.0161 446 2444
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a
particular interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the
European Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK
by Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having
pathetic pot shots at me personally, however leave my partner
out of this.
PS I still have all my teeth except one and third wisdom teeth - what about you?
Mark, if I obtain the IP address of the forger from the sysop
running the news server then would you be interested in knowing
it?
I think we all would. Why just discuss this with Mark? Is there
something you're trying to prove?
Mark experienced harassment by having personal data revealed without
permission, so he's in a position to raise a formal complaint in a
way a third party isn't.
Fredxx
2018-05-16 19:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ophelia
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/
Nothing to hide
6 Stanton Gardens, Manchester, M20 2PT
Silverback Systems Limited
Shacked up with
Tel.0161 446 2444
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a
particular interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the
European Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK
by Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having
pathetic pot shots at me personally, however leave my partner
out of this.
PS I still have all my teeth except one and third wisdom teeth - what about you?
Mark, if I obtain the IP address of the forger from the sysop
running the news server then would you be interested in knowing
it?
I think we all would. Why just discuss this with Mark? Is there
something you're trying to prove?
Mark experienced harassment by having personal data revealed without
permission, so he's in a position to raise a formal complaint in a
way a third party isn't.
I am also being harassed by you, please don't forget that.

You made an accusation, it is up to you to get off your arse and backup
your claims or apologise.
pamela
2018-05-16 19:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ophelia
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/
Nothing to hide
6 Stanton Gardens, Manchester, M20 2PT
Silverback Systems Limited
Shacked up with
Tel.0161 446 2444
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a
particular interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the
European Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK
by Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having
pathetic pot shots at me personally, however leave my partner
out of this.
PS I still have all my teeth except one and third wisdom teeth - what about you?
Mark, if I obtain the IP address of the forger from the sysop
running the news server then would you be interested in knowing
it?
I think we all would. Why just discuss this with Mark? Is there
something you're trying to prove?
Mark experienced harassment by having personal data revealed
without permission, so he's in a position to raise a formal
complaint in a way a third party isn't.
I am also being harassed by you, please don't forget that.
You made an accusation, it is up to you to get off your arse and
backup your claims or apologise.
Nice try at turning a complaint into "harassment". Is your middle
name "Trump" by any chance?
Fredxx
2018-05-16 19:32:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxx
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ophelia
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/
Nothing to hide
6 Stanton Gardens, Manchester, M20 2PT
Silverback Systems Limited
Shacked up with
Tel.0161 446 2444
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a
particular interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the
European Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK
by Winston Churchill).
As you point out I am a big boy and can handle people having
pathetic pot shots at me personally, however leave my partner
out of this.
PS I still have all my teeth except one and third wisdom teeth - what about you?
Mark, if I obtain the IP address of the forger from the sysop
running the news server then would you be interested in knowing
it?
I think we all would. Why just discuss this with Mark? Is there
something you're trying to prove?
Mark experienced harassment by having personal data revealed
without permission, so he's in a position to raise a formal
complaint in a way a third party isn't.
I am also being harassed by you, please don't forget that.
You made an accusation, it is up to you to get off your arse and
backup your claims or apologise.
Nice try at turning a complaint into "harassment". Is your middle
name "Trump" by any chance?
There was no complaint but an accusation. I thought you were bright
enough to understand the difference and to understand what integrity is.

You come across as a nasty piece of work. Have you got off your arse and
made any discoveries? Or is your MO to simply make accusations? Is this
a typical Remoaner thing?
pamela
2018-05-12 12:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ophelia
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/
Nothing to hide
6 Gardens, Manchester, M20
Systems Limited
Shacked up with
Irene .
Tel.0161 446
"Mark was a founder member of the Liberal Democrats and has a
particular interest in Civil Liberties and
is particularly keen that the UK remains a signatory to the
European Declaration of Human Rights (first signed for the UK by
Winston Churchill).
Ophelia, where did you get that private info from? Have you been
stalking Mark?

I'm not sure it's wise to post personal data on the net without the
subject's permission as the police take electronic harassment much more
seriously than they used to years ago.

Aioe allows you to post anonymously but Paulo, who runs Aioe, keeps IP
logs and he's known to be on a very short fuse when it come to abuse.
https://news.aioe.org/manual/contacts/
Ophelia
2018-05-12 13:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
Post by pamela
Have you seen the size of this whale.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/mark-clayton
And those rotten teeth.
Can I just ask you to avoid ad hominem attacks please.
And, btw, can we have your dental chart?
See here. http://www.goodsamdental.org/dental-chart/

Nothing to hide

==

I DIDN'T WRITE THAT. Pam when are you going to grow up?
Loading...