Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Feb 11, 2008 16:00:30 GMT -6
The "post-internet" period is the period after 1996 when Talossa went online. I still think that terminology is incorrect. "post" anything means "after something is over" If you say "Post-internet", then you are saying "after the internet" was over. It's not over yet.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 11, 2008 16:19:55 GMT -6
how about just "post-pre-internet" period As for why this bill is important - It is important because it let's us use these terms in future bills without mass confusion. For instance, let's say someone wanted to make a bill that would give all Talossans (cestour and old growther) citizenship (don't ask me why) now there is already a pre-set word for those people.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Feb 11, 2008 16:29:18 GMT -6
Why not create a new nomenclature for the introduction of the internet to Talossa....
"B.I" - Before Interenet
"C.E." - Current Era
or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 11, 2008 16:29:44 GMT -6
that would actually be pretty interesting
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 11, 2008 16:33:11 GMT -6
Is I indicated previously, I see no reason not to let such a bill define the terms within itself, which would be a lot easier for all concerned. And what is the need for these terms, anyway? The only term which has ever been needed is "cestour", and that is already defined (albeit poorly, and with the need for possible review). The only possible need might be brevity or clarity within the law, in which case I would prefer some manner of jurisprudence applied to the matter by someone trained in the law.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 11, 2008 17:55:59 GMT -6
AD, I'd actually suggest I, coincidentally, have answered your question as to the purpose a Bill representing a cultural backdrop. Talking about trained jurisprudence when it comes to discussing cultural terms seems like it could be positively counterproductive.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 11, 2008 18:01:15 GMT -6
AD, I'd actually suggest I, coincidentally, have answered your question as to the purpose a Bill representing a cultural backdrop. Talking about trained jurisprudence when it comes to discussing cultural terms seems like it could be positively counterproductive. We need to make sure we're clear about the purposes and function of the law then. Because a bill that represents a cultural backdrop as you suggest doesn't need the same degree of precision as a bill crafting terms to plug into future legislation, as Dréu suggests.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 11, 2008 18:06:41 GMT -6
My idea was stupid, Owen's is better
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 11, 2008 18:14:10 GMT -6
Might I suggest we abandon establishing this, actually, until it is established? Simply post this in the CUG forum or the like as suggested terms for these things. If these terms are good enough or actually useful, they will pass into common parlance or at least be noted for the future.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 11, 2008 18:28:54 GMT -6
Cresti, I think that a cultural backdrop should inform the way future legislation is worded, wouldn't you think? This Bill would, in a non-binding way, suggest the correct terms from an official stance.
The views of an expert from the CUG would certainly be appreciated - indeed, that'd be a prerequisite before being Clarked, if it were to get that far.
|
|
EM Vürinalt
Citizen since 12-20-2007
Parletz, am?c, en entrez
Posts: 979
|
Post by EM Vürinalt on Feb 13, 2008 20:35:58 GMT -6
It seems that debate is nearly done here, but let me pipe in for a bit. ;D
Personally, I believe this bill is unneeded. For the sake of Talossa at the present moment, and likely for a very long time, the term Cestour is the only one needed to make laws with. The others are just needless subcategories of "citizen." "Old Growther," "Good Talossan," "Cypbercit"...they are all terms for the same thing citizen.
And, at the risk of much debate, the majority of Talossans are not from the GTA, and we have more of a internet presence than an actual landed presence.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Casálmac'h on Feb 14, 2008 12:22:46 GMT -6
Just to echo what everyone else has said, I think this is unnecessary. I think the place for these terms is a dictionary.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 15, 2008 6:58:58 GMT -6
Then set to, dear sir, set to.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Feb 16, 2008 15:39:40 GMT -6
Just to echo what everyone else has said, I think this is unnecessary. I think the place for these terms is a dictionary. I couldn't agree more!
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 16, 2008 17:41:18 GMT -6
Then put 'em in!
|
|