|
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 Owen Edwards on Feb 18, 2008 9:49:45 GMT -6
We've discussed how this HAS been an issue; we've discussed how no-one else seems to be seeking to remedy it (however minor an issue may seem to be, it does not mean we should ignore it!); and we've discussed how there is precedence to the formation of legal language.
Those are the reasons. I have outlined alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 18, 2008 3:46:31 GMT -6
You're suggesting some of these terms have not come up as hazy areas in Talossan legal past? Glancing quickly (am at work, not in a situation to study in depth just yet) at some of the previous boundaries, citizenship and so forth bills, definitions seem incredibly loose and overflexible.
And a response along the lines of "we must ensure this is immediately necessary" (a debatable point anyway) still doesn't deal with the greater issue that this has come up again and again in non-lawmaking conversation, reached no conclusion, and found no space for discussion amongst language experts except the Hon Member who hoppered this Bill.
I am sure Dreu would happily withdraw this if a discussion was tabled in the CUG, or somewhere else that the critics in this thread have suggested.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 18, 2008 3:11:21 GMT -6
I am, then, appalled at these courts, legislatures and government departments in various nations through history and all geography directing the nature of legal language, both LEGALLY BINDING and CULTURALLY SUGGESTIVE.
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?
I'm this close to hari kiri guys, my honour is so stained by being involved in this travesty, &c.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 17, 2008 17:32:07 GMT -6
See the body of the debate as to the sense of the Bill.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 17, 2008 17:14:56 GMT -6
But this IS expanding upon it, surely - that is the point. This is a proactive attempt to expand our vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 17, 2008 16:48:16 GMT -6
The negative response here is puzzling, because no-one seems willing to work on an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 15, 2008 6:58:58 GMT -6
Then set to, dear sir, set to.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 11, 2008 10:24:01 GMT -6
Based on Cresti's comments, I'd definitely change references to "GTA" to "Talossa" or similar; and tidy up the cybercit reference.
instead of "legal terms", "terms for everyday usage" - give this Bill the effect of a Sense of the Ziu as opposed to a law which can be broken
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 10, 2008 17:49:42 GMT -6
In that case, the definition should simply be NOTED, rather than be defined, and any necessary rejigs taken into account.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 10, 2008 16:38:58 GMT -6
WHITCARE for HOME GROWTH
Nuff said.
This is a good Bill, and I huug Hooly greatly. The LRT backs this.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 21, 2008 3:23:19 GMT -6
I concur with the Senator - this is a good Bill, but with the current grey area regarding control of finances it might benefit waiting a month or two.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 6, 2008 14:43:49 GMT -6
Given that individual spending Bills can be brought up at the appropriate time, the present form of this Bill is a lot better, and garners the LRT's official support.
|
|