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 18, 2008 10:24:42 GMT -6
I have strident problems with the terms.
3. Cestourevriac (Drunk Cestour) - A Cestour who became a Talossan post-internet period
Some might be insulted to be called a "Drunk". I personally would not like it if every time I was addressed, my sobriety is questioned
5. Ertéierben (Good Talossan) - A Cybercit who moves to Talossa after becoming a citizen
Everyone who is not an Ertéierben is a Bad Talossan?
I do not agree with these terms, and would prefer others.
Edit: to remove me sounding like more of a jerk than I really am.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 18, 2008 16:50:32 GMT -6
Mick.
They are clearly quirky "joke" terms. That's what a lot of Talossa is! Quirkiness.
|
|
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 18, 2008 19:17:10 GMT -6
I don't have to like your "joke" items, do I?
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 18, 2008 19:26:17 GMT -6
No sir.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 18, 2008 19:30:13 GMT -6
Are you going to address the dozen or so other serious problems I brought up in my last post?
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 18, 2008 19:34:42 GMT -6
I am sorry S:reu Davis. I had not seen your post.
You have every right to Vehemently oppose it.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 18, 2008 19:40:29 GMT -6
But you're not going to address them or alter the bill, eh?
Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 2:42:11 GMT -6
Alex, you're slipping into rhetoric by suggesting I MUST mean the nation is on its knees for lack of a dictionary. When I have a decent time to spend on the computer at home, I'll dredge up the posts - but you know as well as I there have been 3 or 4 times recently that the definition of Cestour has come up for discussion and reached no conclusion.
Equally, if you would like links and nuanced analysis on the hardly controversial claim that world legislatures have, in the past, defined or advised legal terms, I will, given more free time than at present, but you know as well as I do that demanding documented proof isn't really necessary; "World legislatures have defined or advised legal terms, in various situations and for various motives" is hardly a controversial statement, and you're frankly trailing your coat on the matter.
I can't see a third enquiry (sorry if I've missed it). Your concerns about the wording itself may or may not be correct (cf Mick's concerns as well) but you did not bring those up previously, when they're the more important side of this discussion.
MC Casalmach, a number of posts HAVE suggested that whilst this is an issue to be addressed, it should be addressed by other authorities. Let's not be getting silly now, it ill befits a member of this august body.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 19, 2008 3:04:31 GMT -6
Alex, you're slipping into rhetoric by suggesting I MUST mean the nation is on its knees for lack of a dictionary. You're right, that was wrong of me. I should not have ventured into hyperbole. "I'm this close to hari kiri guys, my honour is so stained by being involved in this travesty, &c." When I have a decent time to spend on the computer at home, I'll dredge up the posts - but you know as well as I there have been 3 or 4 times recently that the definition of Cestour has come up for discussion and reached no conclusion. That is accurate, it did arise at one point in an aside on a discussion, to my immediate knowledge. To everyone's good fortune, it was nothing like a pressing issue. It still isn't. Hell, this is the only reason that is anything like a good one for this bill, and it could be solved with a single thread in the language forum, "What is a Cestour, precisely?" where a consensus is reached on the general understanding of the term. Equally, if you would like links and nuanced analysis on the hardly controversial claim that world legislatures have, in the past, defined or advised legal terms, I will, given more free time than at present, but you know as well as I do that demanding documented proof isn't really necessary; "World legislatures have defined or advised legal terms, in various situations and for various motives" is hardly a controversial statement, and you're frankly trailing your coat on the matter. Except that you are arguing a different point than the one I made. What I pointed out was that I was not aware of legislators compiling new lists of made-up words and terms in case they might be needed in the future. Naturally, legal terms are created all the time and defined repeatedly. I even took the trouble to link you to an example of such an instance, deliberately to point this out. But such terms created when needed, and almost invariably drawn from usage not made wholesale. I found that claim to be controversial, and so I asked you to support it. Or, for that matter, support anything you have claimed. I can't see a third enquiry (sorry if I've missed it). Your concerns about the wording itself may or may not be correct (cf Mick's concerns as well) but you did not bring those up previously, when they're the more important side of this discussion. I didn't imagine that this bill would be clarked while debate still raged, since it is customary to wait until debate has at least slowed before clarking something. The problem of imprecision was brought up immediately, however, by MC Preston and myself with regards to "internet period". MC Casalmach, a number of posts HAVE suggested that whilst this is an issue to be addressed, it should be addressed by other authorities. Let's not be getting silly now, it ill befits a member of this august body. Don't worry, S:reu Casalmac'h, I have no doubt he is just joking. "Might we write a letter, Alexander, Mick? An angry letter truly telling them off? Meanwhile, perhaps the relevant authorities should seek to clear this up so we inadequate fools do not overstep our boundaries into the hallowed halls of language?"
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 3:29:38 GMT -6
Yes Alexander, but *I'm* funny. *grins*
The MC Hoppered and Clarked this as a private member's bill, and so I can't respond to the point about where the debate is.
As far as I can see, the only claim I have made that might really require substantiation (even by your standards above) is that legislatures at times will, in anticipation of an event, legislate or advise on legal terms. I can certainly seek to provide you with examples, though I suggest we make that a private discussion when I have the time and space (ie, have a laptop of my own back, am not out, etc, etc) - I don't see me linking to a 1920s House of Commons Bill or something swinging the debate here, when even you acknowledge it would not be unprecedented for a Bill at least AKIN to this to be proposed elsewhere (your precise disagreement being that you find it unlikely that it would be proposed without a heavily pressing cause).
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 19, 2008 6:55:24 GMT -6
Actually... if you look in the Glhetg forum. There seems to be a bit of a fight about what a Cestour really is: Technically speaking, a Cestoûr is someone who is not a Talossan citizen at all, but lives inside Eastern Milwaukee, Talossa's birthplace. (There are 40,000 Cestoûrs and very few of them even know about Talossa.) Now, what should we call the Talossan citizens living in Talossa proper? There is no term for them. It used to be "Old Growthers", but that refers only to those who pre-dated Cybercits, the citizens not living in Eastern Milwaukee and communicating mainly through the Internet, especially on Wittenberg, our message forum. Therefore the CCCP proposes that the word "Cestoûr" become used as a single term covering Eastern Milwaukee residents in general, Talossans or Non-Talossans, Old Growthers or not. More info on the CCCP (The Red Party) can be found at www.kingdomoftalossa.net/index.cgi?lingo=&page=CCCP.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 7:17:46 GMT -6
So, in fact, it's alwaready EXPLICITLY a political issue of use...
|
|
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 19, 2008 8:39:57 GMT -6
It's only political because Xhorxh decided to attach his party's name to the issue.
I don't see a division amongst party lines in the Language area of these forums.
I do see some serious problems in this Bill, in that terms are not fully defined in the final writing of the bill - post vs pre- internet, the physical boundaries of the GTA vs Talossa, the fact that "The term "Cestour" is already legally defined by Organic Law (Article XVIII, Section 2), just to name a few.
It is my opinion that these concerns need to be addressed, not to mention the ones brought up by Lord Hooligan, Justice Siervicül, MC Caçeir , et al. before it is brought to the Ziu for voting.
If, at least, we can get the wording clarified and correct, then perhaps we can refine the arguments down to if it is necessary, and then if this is an Act or an Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 8:49:55 GMT -6
Xhorxh evidently considers it an important definition to make.
I think the proposing MC to respond to any questions about precise wording, and encourage him to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 19, 2008 8:51:16 GMT -6
I will gladly change "Post internet period" and "Pre internet period" to whatever the Honourable Secretary of State from M-M thinks is most suitable.
|
|