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 9:15:24 GMT -6
It's not my bill.
I don't think it would be fair for me to define the terms in your bill.
First, because you did all the work and defense of it.
Second, I don't want to make definitions that you might disagree with, and you be forced to accept wording that you don't like. That wouldn't be fair.
Finally, if I edit wording on this bill, I become a co-author. Since I am not convinced we even need this Act / Amendment, I don't think it would be right for me to stick my name on it.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 19, 2008 9:19:23 GMT -6
A change has been made.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 19, 2008 11:56:46 GMT -6
Yes Alexander, but *I'm* funny. *grins* Hehe, let's not go overboard 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). You asserted that bills such as this were very common in that legislatures were always defining such terms. I said that was not so, except inasmuch as those terms are defined as they are needed, and almost always AFTER they have come into use, to iron out a precise legal definition. You said that was so, but you won't show me where. I think it is only reasonable for myself and other legislators to assume that it is, in fact, not so, until such a time as you prove it, since it seems a silly claim. Actually... if you look in the Glhetg forum. There seems to be a bit of a fight about what a Cestour really is: So, in fact, it's alwaready EXPLICITLY a political issue of use... I agree. That term, Cestour, is an important term with political implications inasmuch as it is in a party's statement and desire to change the meaning (a meaning which is already established). It was also defined in the OrgLaw, XVIII.2 to the extent it was needed, to our great relief. You will perhaps recall that this is why this definition is no longer in the bill. So there does not seem to be a need for this bill. At all. And considering how, even if there might be some vague future matter that would require us to spring to action so swiftly that we couldn't stop to define an "old growther", however unlikely such a scenario may be, I would still be opposed to legislating our language. It is not a dead thing to be hacked at as we need, it is a living creation which will evolve through use like any other language.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Casálmac'h on Feb 19, 2008 14:47:18 GMT -6
Don't worry, S:reu Casalmac'h, I have no doubt he is just joking. Thank you, S:reu Davis. One can always hope. 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. MC Edwards, I fail to see that opposing this bill is "getting silly", at least not any more so than supporting it. Cestourevriac (Drunk Cestour) - A Cestour who became a Talossan post-internet period I really don't understand this term. So any Cestour who gets drunk and then becomes a citizen of the Kingdom after the internet no longer exists is a Cestourevriac? Coming up with terms like that is what I would call "getting silly".
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 15:58:00 GMT -6
Sevastain, I think your particular objection did not seem based upon the numerous "well it's a decent idea but it should be done differently" responses here and in the general discussion surrounding the definition of, say, Cestour.
Alexander, if I said precisely that legislatures weekly passed bills dictating language, I am sorry for any confusion, though I don't remember phrasing it like that. You acknowledge that such Bills can happen in anticipation of issues (and certainly in the past legislatures have passed Bills affecting a nation's culture - god bless Lord Reith), and given the fact this is an extant issue (re it being a political and cultural issue for a number of people and organizations). So that precise objection to the basis of this Bill is somewhat weakened, no?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 19, 2008 16:12:45 GMT -6
Alexander, if I said precisely that legislatures weekly passed bills dictating language, I am sorry for any confusion, though I don't remember phrasing it like that. You acknowledge that such Bills can happen in anticipation of issues (and certainly in the past legislatures have passed Bills affecting a nation's culture - god bless Lord Reith), and given the fact this is an extant issue (re it being a political and cultural issue for a number of people and organizations). So that precise objection to the basis of this Bill is somewhat weakened, no? You didn't say that. I didn't say that you did. Let me, once again, recount what happened: You asserted that bills such as this were very common in that legislatures were always defining such terms. I said that was not so, except inasmuch as those terms are defined as they are needed, and almost always AFTER they have come into use, to iron out a precise legal definition. You said that was so, but you won't show me where. I think it is only reasonable for myself and other legislators to assume that it is, in fact, not so, until such a time as you prove it, since it seems a silly claim. I should now note that you have still not provided a single example of even passing pertinence. I did not, in fact, say that bills are passed in advance, nor did I accuse you of saying they are passed weekly. Nor did I deny that bills can be passed affecting culture. You are wholly and purposefully misstating what we have said. But we should not legislate culture needlessly, mandating an expansion of it in this way, nor should we pass bills giving nice little lists of neologisms in advance of need.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 19, 2008 16:14:17 GMT -6
I move for a sumo match between Alexander and Owen. Do I hear a second?
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Casálmac'h on Feb 19, 2008 16:40:35 GMT -6
I move for a sumo match between Alexander and Owen. Do I hear a second? No, let's not get silly. I think there are serious issues to be addressed with this bill, and I wholly agree with Senator Davis. I really don't see why this bill is neccessary.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 19, 2008 17:00:26 GMT -6
MC Casálmac'h,
This bill has already been submitted to be clarked. There is no reason for argument. Argue with your votes.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 17:13:44 GMT -6
As made clear elsewhere, I don't take especially kind to being told of my purposes and motives.
I think finding links to examples of times where government has directed culture and language is a time-consuming and pointless exercise; a glance at British history, at least, would turn up more than enough examples. S4C and the Welsh language movement, for instance, springs to mind without much consideration. Or procedural Bills regarding terms of contention, which have been semi-regular in Parliament, at least, throughout its existence.
The difference we are having is not what you seem to think it is - it's a matter of degrees rather.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 19, 2008 17:24:17 GMT -6
MC Casálmac'h, This bill has already been submitted to be clarked. There is no reason for argument. Argue with your votes. Fair enough. I will vote against this bill.
|
|
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 17:48:37 GMT -6
MC Casálmac'h, This bill has already been submitted to be Clarked. There is no reason for argument. Argue with your votes. I'm sorry, I missed where it states that all debate on bills must stop the moment they are Clarked. Could you please point out that section of ...uh... what ever OrgLaw or Statue you are referring to? From what I understand, debate can continue until the voting is considered final. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 19, 2008 18:13:21 GMT -6
Mick:
When you write your bills. You can clark them when you want? And choose not to chage?
I personally refuse to change it...
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 19, 2008 18:25:59 GMT -6
Mick's point was people can still criticize the Bill here if they want.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 19, 2008 18:46:38 GMT -6
Sure... but it seems to be a moot point...
|
|