Are all caps considered to be English or Latin ?
What does the Australian Governments Style Guide say about using Caps ?
Why are caps used in legal documents ?
Story to follow.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Are all caps considered to be English or Latin ?
What does the Australian Governments Style Guide say about using Caps ?
Why are caps used in legal documents ?
Story to follow.
We use all capitals for surname but that’s about it and not every does that anyway
Tau.Neutrino said:
What does the Australian Governments Style Guide say about using Caps ?
Story to follow.
Take them off when indoors, or in the presence of a lady.
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Are all caps considered to be English or Latin ?
What does the Australian Governments Style Guide say about using Caps ?
Why are caps used in legal documents ?
Story to follow.
We use all capitals for surname but that’s about it and not every does that anyway
Why use caps for names ?
We were taught at school to use just one capital for the start of a persons first, middle and last names.
Are all capitals considered to be proper English ?
captain_spalding said:
Tau.Neutrino said:What does the Australian Governments Style Guide say about using Caps ?
Story to follow.
Take them off when indoors, or in the presence of a lady.
:)
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Are all caps considered to be English or Latin ?
What does the Australian Governments Style Guide say about using Caps ?
Why are caps used in legal documents ?
Story to follow.
We use all capitals for surname but that’s about it and not every does that anyway
It depends on the media.
Online all caps tend to be SHOUTING or CONSPIRACY EMPHASIS (must be followed by !!!!!!!! And the word sheeples)
Written statements taken by the police are often in all caps to avoid ambiguity in writing styles
Tau.Neutrino said:
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Are all caps considered to be English or Latin ?
What does the Australian Governments Style Guide say about using Caps ?
Why are caps used in legal documents ?
Story to follow.
We use all capitals for surname but that’s about it and not every does that anyway
Why use caps for names ?
We were taught at school to use just one capital for the start of a persons first, middle and last names.
Are all capitals considered to be proper English ?
ONLY IN A TELEGRAM STOP
Arts said:
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Are all caps considered to be English or Latin ?
What does the Australian Governments Style Guide say about using Caps ?
Why are caps used in legal documents ?
Story to follow.
We use all capitals for surname but that’s about it and not every does that anyway
It depends on the media.
Online all caps tend to be SHOUTING or CONSPIRACY EMPHASIS (must be followed by !!!!!!!! And the word sheeples)
Written statements taken by the police are often in all caps to avoid ambiguity in writing styles
The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:
Cymek said:We use all capitals for surname but that’s about it and not every does that anyway
It depends on the media.
Online all caps tend to be SHOUTING or CONSPIRACY EMPHASIS (must be followed by !!!!!!!! And the word sheeples)
Written statements taken by the police are often in all caps to avoid ambiguity in writing styles
The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
Nuttiness must run in the family AFAICT.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:
Cymek said:We use all capitals for surname but that’s about it and not every does that anyway
It depends on the media.
Online all caps tend to be SHOUTING or CONSPIRACY EMPHASIS (must be followed by !!!!!!!! And the word sheeples)
Written statements taken by the police are often in all caps to avoid ambiguity in writing styles
The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
how can it be latin?
Tau.Neutrino said:
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
Maybe.
But, without Latin, and the English language’s multitudinous borrowings from it, there’d be a lot less English, and a lot more pointing and grunting.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:It depends on the media.
Online all caps tend to be SHOUTING or CONSPIRACY EMPHASIS (must be followed by !!!!!!!! And the word sheeples)
Written statements taken by the police are often in all caps to avoid ambiguity in writing styles
The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
Nuttiness must run in the family AFAICT.
He got a warrant with both capitals and lower case and he is saying that that is ambiguous.
JudgeMental said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:It depends on the media.
Online all caps tend to be SHOUTING or CONSPIRACY EMPHASIS (must be followed by !!!!!!!! And the word sheeples)
Written statements taken by the police are often in all caps to avoid ambiguity in writing styles
The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
how can it be latin?
See now your just engaging him on his level. Soon you’ll be decrying the use of caps for proper nouns.
captain_spalding said:
Tau.Neutrino said:He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
Maybe.
But, without Latin, and the English language’s multitudinous borrowings from it, there’d be a lot less English, and a lot more pointing and grunting.
well, romance languages rather than latin per se.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:
Cymek said:We use all capitals for surname but that’s about it and not every does that anyway
It depends on the media.
Online all caps tend to be SHOUTING or CONSPIRACY EMPHASIS (must be followed by !!!!!!!! And the word sheeples)
Written statements taken by the police are often in all caps to avoid ambiguity in writing styles
The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.
JudgeMental said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:It depends on the media.
Online all caps tend to be SHOUTING or CONSPIRACY EMPHASIS (must be followed by !!!!!!!! And the word sheeples)
Written statements taken by the police are often in all caps to avoid ambiguity in writing styles
The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
how can it be latin?
He is saying that all caps came from Latin.
Witty Rejoinder said:
JudgeMental said:
Tau.Neutrino said:The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
how can it be latin?
See now your just engaging him on his level. Soon you’ll be decrying the use of caps for proper nouns.
I WILL NOT!!!!
Tau.Neutrino said:
He got a warrant with both capitals and lower case and he is saying that that is ambiguous.
How could he?
‘Ambiguous’ derives from a Latin word, so by his own definition, he’s not using the right language.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
This is just a plain fucking silly argument. The courts will not take such a restricted view of what constitutes communication.
captain_spalding said:
Tau.Neutrino said:What does the Australian Governments Style Guide say about using Caps ?
Story to follow.
Take them off when indoors, or in the presence of a lady.
… and burial parties unless part of a formed body.
JudgeMental said:
captain_spalding said:
Tau.Neutrino said:He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
Maybe.
But, without Latin, and the English language’s multitudinous borrowings from it, there’d be a lot less English, and a lot more pointing and grunting.
well, romance languages rather than latin per se.
CLD?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
Nuttiness must run in the family AFAICT.
He got a warrant with both capitals and lower case and he is saying that that is ambiguous.
My credit card has my name in all caps. Despite my protestations they charge me for online purchases using standard capitalisation.
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Arts said:It depends on the media.
Online all caps tend to be SHOUTING or CONSPIRACY EMPHASIS (must be followed by !!!!!!!! And the word sheeples)
Written statements taken by the police are often in all caps to avoid ambiguity in writing styles
The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.
Does that make all legal documents void then ?
Is it something that needs addressing to clear it up.
What would that require ?
captain_spalding said:
Tau.Neutrino said:He got a warrant with both capitals and lower case and he is saying that that is ambiguous.
How could he?
‘Ambiguous’ derives from a Latin word, so by his own definition, he’s not using the right language.
we will fight it on the benches, we will fight it in our homes, we will never surrender!
party_pants said:
Tau.Neutrino said:The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
This is just a plain fucking silly argument. The courts will not take such a restricted view of what constitutes communication.
To you and other people perhaps.
But not to my brother.
Tau.Neutrino said:
JudgeMental said:
Tau.Neutrino said:The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
how can it be latin?
He is saying that all caps came from Latin.
Not the letter ‘J’.
I knew a bloke whose name was spelled wrong on an army charge sheet and was convinced he could get off on a technicality. He waited till the end of proceedings then said it was invalid as he wasn’t the one named on the charge. RSM marched him out, Chief Clerk retyped charge and he was marched back again and the sentence was confirmed.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.
Does that make all legal documents void then ?
Is it something that needs addressing to clear it up.
What would that require ?
How?
No.
Nothing.
sibeen said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
JudgeMental said:how can it be latin?
He is saying that all caps came from Latin.
Not the letter ‘J’.
i see what you did there.
AwesomeO said:
I knew a bloke whose name was spelled wrong on an army charge sheet and was convinced he could get off on a technicality. He waited till the end of proceedings then said it was invalid as he wasn’t the one named on the charge. RSM marched him out, Chief Clerk retyped charge and he was marched back again and the sentence was confirmed.
A more devious punishment would have been to acknowledge his claim – and then change all of his records to the incorrect spelling. Then deny him rations, pay, quarters, BEER ISSUE! etc., on the basis that he wasn’t the person in their records.
Tau.Neutrino said:
party_pants said:
Tau.Neutrino said:The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
This is just a plain fucking silly argument. The courts will not take such a restricted view of what constitutes communication.
To you and other people perhaps.
But not to my brother.
It’s probably all the stalking by neighbours sending him around the bend…
sibeen said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
JudgeMental said:how can it be latin?
He is saying that all caps came from Latin.
Not the letter ‘J’.
Nor “U”.
(We all know “j” was invented by electrical engineers.)
Michael V said:
sibeen said:
Tau.Neutrino said:He is saying that all caps came from Latin.
Not the letter ‘J’.
Nor “U”.
Yes, “I” was.
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.
Does that make all legal documents void then ?
Is it something that needs addressing to clear it up.
What would that require ?
How?
No.
Nothing.
>>>There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.
If that’s the case, (pun) then how does Australian law and the courts recognize English has a basic form of communication. ?
captain_spalding said:
AwesomeO said:
I knew a bloke whose name was spelled wrong on an army charge sheet and was convinced he could get off on a technicality. He waited till the end of proceedings then said it was invalid as he wasn’t the one named on the charge. RSM marched him out, Chief Clerk retyped charge and he was marched back again and the sentence was confirmed.
A more devious punishment would have been to acknowledge his claim – and then change all of his records to the incorrect spelling. Then deny him rations, pay, quarters, BEER ISSUE! etc., on the basis that he wasn’t the person in their records.
snigger
Tau.Neutrino said:
If that’s the case, (pun) then how does Australian law and the courts recognize English has a basic form of communication. ?
Umm..they hear it, and understand it?
Michael V said:
sibeen said:
Tau.Neutrino said:He is saying that all caps came from Latin.
Not the letter ‘J’.
Nor “U”.
(We all know “j” was invented by electrical engineers.)
cos they use I for amps, don’t ask.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
party_pants said:This is just a plain fucking silly argument. The courts will not take such a restricted view of what constitutes communication.
To you and other people perhaps.
But not to my brother.
It’s probably all the stalking by neighbours sending him around the bend…
conversations at family bbqs must be thrilling………
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Does that make all legal documents void then ?
Is it something that needs addressing to clear it up.
What would that require ?
How?
No.
Nothing.
>>>There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.
If that’s the case, (pun) then how does Australian law and the courts recognize English has a basic form of communication. ?
By common agreement.
JudgeMental said:
Michael V said:
sibeen said:Not the letter ‘J’.
Nor “U”.
(We all know “j” was invented by electrical engineers.)
cos they use I for amps, don’t ask.
I won’t.
They’re weird.
I would think that the official language of Australia would be English because that is the language the constitution is written in and that could be cited as the authority. And they use capitalised words in that so your brother is sunk.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Does that make all legal documents void then ?
Is it something that needs addressing to clear it up.
What would that require ?
How?
No.
Nothing.
>>>There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.
If that’s the case, (pun) then how does Australian law and the courts recognize English has a basic form of communication. ?
because that is what most people who workin a courthouse understand..
you have the legal right to talk swahili in a court if you so choose, but the court will appoint a translator so they know WTF you are saying
Michael V said:
JudgeMental said:
Michael V said:Nor “U”.
(We all know “j” was invented by electrical engineers.)
cos they use I for amps, don’t ask.
I won’t.
They’re weird.
I prefer ‘eccentric’ .
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:How?
No.
Nothing.
>>>There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.
If that’s the case, (pun) then how does Australian law and the courts recognize English has a basic form of communication. ?
By common agreement.
Where does it say that in Common law or the Constitution
Im after something that I can show to my brother
If I show him this.
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That will strengthen his argument.
Tau.Neutrino said:
rIf I show him this.
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That will strengthen his argument.
Quite the contrary.
It will demonstrate that, in whatever form they choose to present the documents, they are legitimate. Including the use of capitals.
the courts hate you wasting there time and he will get short shrift he he goes down that road.
JudgeMental said:
the courts hate you wasting there time and he will get short shrift he he goes down that road.
*their
JudgeMental said:
the courts hate you wasting there time and he will get short shrift he he goes down that road.
Where would we be today if it were not for our time-wasting litigants?
Witty Rejoinder said:
JudgeMental said:
the courts hate you wasting there time and he will get short shrift he he goes down that road.
Where would we be today if it were not for our time-wasting litigants?
Talking about something else?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:>>>There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.
If that’s the case, (pun) then how does Australian law and the courts recognize English has a basic form of communication. ?
By common agreement.
Where does it say that in Common law or the Constitution
Im after something that I can show to my brother
If I show him this.
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That will strengthen his argument.
No, it weakens his argument. In common law it just has to be adequate for the purpose of communication. A handwritten note on a napkin can be enforced as a legally binding contract even if it contains spelling mistakes.
Stumpy_seahorse said:
JudgeMental said:
the courts hate you wasting there time and he will get short shrift he he goes down that road.
*their
you past the test.
party_pants said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:By common agreement.
Where does it say that in Common law or the Constitution
Im after something that I can show to my brother
If I show him this.
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That will strengthen his argument.
No, it weakens his argument. In common law it just has to be adequate for the purpose of communication. A handwritten note on a napkin can be enforced as a legally binding contract even if it contains spelling mistakes.
Yeah, what he said better than i did.
captain_spalding said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
rIf I show him this.
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That will strengthen his argument.
Quite the contrary.
It will demonstrate that, in whatever form they choose to present the documents, they are legitimate. Including the use of capitals.
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That make Law void then
Tau.Neutrino said:
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That make Law void then
Point taken.
I’m off to rob a bank, free from the fear of prosecution, as Law has been rendered void.
Tau.Neutrino said:
captain_spalding said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
rIf I show him this.
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That will strengthen his argument.
Quite the contrary.
It will demonstrate that, in whatever form they choose to present the documents, they are legitimate. Including the use of capitals.
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That make Law void then
It’s not like computer code where being precise is what matters. It is the intent of the laws that matters except for when there is some confusion about that content.
party_pants said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:By common agreement.
Where does it say that in Common law or the Constitution
Im after something that I can show to my brother
If I show him this.
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That will strengthen his argument.
No, it weakens his argument. In common law it just has to be adequate for the purpose of communication. A handwritten note on a napkin can be enforced as a legally binding contract even if it contains spelling mistakes.
No, it strengthens his argument and leads to more ambiguity
That is what he is saying
Mixed upper and lower case on warrants causes ambiguity
if “There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.” then that creates more ambiguity.
And it leaves our legal system in a mess.
Tau.Neutrino said:
party_pants said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Where does it say that in Common law or the Constitution
Im after something that I can show to my brother
If I show him this.
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That will strengthen his argument.
No, it weakens his argument. In common law it just has to be adequate for the purpose of communication. A handwritten note on a napkin can be enforced as a legally binding contract even if it contains spelling mistakes.
No, it strengthens his argument and leads to more ambiguity
That is what he is saying
Mixed upper and lower case on warrants causes ambiguity
if “There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.” then that creates more ambiguity.
And it leaves our legal system in a mess.
It does not create ambiguity. He is silly.
Tau.Neutrino said:
And it leaves our legal system in a mess.
May I be the first to declare your bother the King of the South.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
captain_spalding said:Quite the contrary.
It will demonstrate that, in whatever form they choose to present the documents, they are legitimate. Including the use of capitals.
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That make Law void then
It’s not like computer code where being precise is what matters. It is the intent of the laws that matters except for when there is some confusion about that content.
content = intent
Tau.Neutrino said:
And it leaves our legal system in a mess.
Well, tell your brother to get busy on sorting it out, and to report back to us when it’s all in order.
captain_spalding said:
Tau.Neutrino said:And it leaves our legal system in a mess.
Well, tell your brother to get busy on sorting it out, and to report back to us when it’s all in order.
Well I dunno. I’d only ever use them for headlines.
roughbarked said:
captain_spalding said:
Tau.Neutrino said:And it leaves our legal system in a mess.
Well, tell your brother to get busy on sorting it out, and to report back to us when it’s all in order.
Well I dunno. I’d only ever use them for headlines.
If I cannot find an explicit reference to the Australian legal system recognizing English and the use of lower and uppercase in documents.
What does that say about our legal system ?
I see that as a fundamental requirement .
Tau.Neutrino said:
If I cannot find an explicit reference to the Australian legal system recognizing English and the use of lower and uppercase in documents.What does that say about our legal system ?
I see that as a fundamental requirement .
Yeah but you’re an unemployed stoner.. Just sayin’.
Tau.Neutrino said:
If I cannot find an explicit reference to the Australian legal system recognizing English and the use of lower and uppercase in documents.What does that say about our legal system ?
I see that as a fundamental requirement .
Perhaps because it is fundamental English?
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
If I cannot find an explicit reference to the Australian legal system recognizing English and the use of lower and uppercase in documents.What does that say about our legal system ?
I see that as a fundamental requirement .
Perhaps because it is fundamental English?
But not referenced properly in the constitution , common law and commercial law.
I find it interesting.
Tau.Neutrino said:
If I cannot find an explicit reference to the Australian legal system recognizing English and the use of lower and uppercase in documents.What does that say about our legal system ?
I see that as a fundamental requirement .
You are looking at it the wrong way around. Unless there is a law that specifically says a traffic infringement warrant must comply to a certain style and writing guide then it does not need to comply; and anything adequate for the purpose of communication will be accepted by the courts. Using upper or lower case letters or a combination of both does not create ambiguity.
Your brother is a fucking fuckwit, or Fucking Fuckwit if he prefers, or even a FUCKING FUCKWIT.
party_pants said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
If I cannot find an explicit reference to the Australian legal system recognizing English and the use of lower and uppercase in documents.What does that say about our legal system ?
I see that as a fundamental requirement .
You are looking at it the wrong way around. Unless there is a law that specifically says a traffic infringement warrant must comply to a certain style and writing guide then it does not need to comply; and anything adequate for the purpose of communication will be accepted by the courts. Using upper or lower case letters or a combination of both does not create ambiguity.
Your brother is a fucking fuckwit, or Fucking Fuckwit if he prefers, or even a FUCKING FUCKWIT.
or a FLOWERING fucking fuckwit.
party_pants said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
If I cannot find an explicit reference to the Australian legal system recognizing English and the use of lower and uppercase in documents.What does that say about our legal system ?
I see that as a fundamental requirement .
You are looking at it the wrong way around. Unless there is a law that specifically says a traffic infringement warrant must comply to a certain style and writing guide then it does not need to comply; and anything adequate for the purpose of communication will be accepted by the courts. Using upper or lower case letters or a combination of both does not create ambiguity.
Your brother is a fucking fuckwit, or Fucking Fuckwit if he prefers, or even a FUCKING FUCKWIT.
No I think he is onto something. A big hole.
Something that needs clarification in law via a new bill.
In Judaeo Christian societies the law is rooted, rooted in the ten commandments which were written in a crude form of Hebrew or possibly Phoenician hieroglyphs but it matters not what form the script took the meaning is the same in all of Babylon and all of the lands beyond.
Tau.Neutrino said:
party_pants said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
If I cannot find an explicit reference to the Australian legal system recognizing English and the use of lower and uppercase in documents.What does that say about our legal system ?
I see that as a fundamental requirement .
You are looking at it the wrong way around. Unless there is a law that specifically says a traffic infringement warrant must comply to a certain style and writing guide then it does not need to comply; and anything adequate for the purpose of communication will be accepted by the courts. Using upper or lower case letters or a combination of both does not create ambiguity.
Your brother is a fucking fuckwit, or Fucking Fuckwit if he prefers, or even a FUCKING FUCKWIT.
No I think he is onto something. A big hole.
Something that needs clarification in law via a new bill.
No. He is onto nothing and is being a silly.
Tau.Neutrino said:
party_pants said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
If I cannot find an explicit reference to the Australian legal system recognizing English and the use of lower and uppercase in documents.What does that say about our legal system ?
I see that as a fundamental requirement .
You are looking at it the wrong way around. Unless there is a law that specifically says a traffic infringement warrant must comply to a certain style and writing guide then it does not need to comply; and anything adequate for the purpose of communication will be accepted by the courts. Using upper or lower case letters or a combination of both does not create ambiguity.
Your brother is a fucking fuckwit, or Fucking Fuckwit if he prefers, or even a FUCKING FUCKWIT.
No I think he is onto something. A big hole.
Something that needs clarification in law via a new bill.
To not recognize English in law is very dismissive and something which was not thought out properly from the beginning.
Hopefully it will be corrected, its been 118 years since Federation
It only needs a Bill to be passed.
If I recall correctly from my last traffic ticket the letters of the address and name and such is written into little boxes, individual for each letter, I can’t recall if it said to use caps lock but I wouldn’t be surprised, that’s the usual format in those little boxes.
AwesomeO said:
If I recall correctly from my last traffic ticket the letters of the address and name and such is written into little boxes, individual for each letter, I can’t recall if it said to use caps lock but I wouldn’t be surprised, that’s the usual format in those little boxes.
and probably so a machine can read them.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
party_pants said:You are looking at it the wrong way around. Unless there is a law that specifically says a traffic infringement warrant must comply to a certain style and writing guide then it does not need to comply; and anything adequate for the purpose of communication will be accepted by the courts. Using upper or lower case letters or a combination of both does not create ambiguity.
Your brother is a fucking fuckwit, or Fucking Fuckwit if he prefers, or even a FUCKING FUCKWIT.
No I think he is onto something. A big hole.
Something that needs clarification in law via a new bill.
To not recognize English in law is very dismissive and something which was not thought out properly from the beginning.
Hopefully it will be corrected, its been 118 years since Federation
It only needs a Bill to be passed.
A Bill you say? Come next parliament you might get the Bill your after. It will be all sunlit uplands and union domination from then on in…
party_pants said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
party_pants said:You are looking at it the wrong way around. Unless there is a law that specifically says a traffic infringement warrant must comply to a certain style and writing guide then it does not need to comply; and anything adequate for the purpose of communication will be accepted by the courts. Using upper or lower case letters or a combination of both does not create ambiguity.
Your brother is a fucking fuckwit, or Fucking Fuckwit if he prefers, or even a FUCKING FUCKWIT.
No I think he is onto something. A big hole.
Something that needs clarification in law via a new bill.
No. He is onto nothing and is being a silly.
No, now your being dismissive.
Give it some thought.
If our legal system does not recognise our own language then that is cause for concern.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:No I think he is onto something. A big hole.
Something that needs clarification in law via a new bill.
To not recognize English in law is very dismissive and something which was not thought out properly from the beginning.
Hopefully it will be corrected, its been 118 years since Federation
It only needs a Bill to be passed.
A Bill you say? Come next parliament you might get the Bill your after. It will be all sunlit uplands and union domination from then on in…
sigh
My brother gets very emotional about it
I don’t. I just find it interesting.
Tau.Neutrino said:
My brother gets very emotional about itI don’t. I just find it interesting.
What does your brother do for a living?
Tau.Neutrino said:
party_pants said:
Tau.Neutrino said:No I think he is onto something. A big hole.
Something that needs clarification in law via a new bill.
No. He is onto nothing and is being a silly.
No, now your being dismissive.
Give it some thought.
If our legal system does not recognise our own language then that is cause for concern.
Law runs on precedence. I think the fact that the constitution, all the legislation and the judges written opinions and findings are all in English would be enough to make your brothers brain fart an expensive and foiled action.
Tau.Neutrino said:
party_pants said:
Tau.Neutrino said:No I think he is onto something. A big hole.
Something that needs clarification in law via a new bill.
No. He is onto nothing and is being a silly.
No, now your being dismissive.
Give it some thought.
If our legal system does not recognise our own language then that is cause for concern.
Wrong way around once again.
I gave the matter some thought, then dismissed it.
Witty Rejoinder said:
A Bill you say? Come next parliament you might get the Bill your after. It will be all sunlit uplands and union domination from then on in…
Don’t worry, Witty.
The ALP is unlikely to overcome its greatest nemesis:
the ALP.
Tau.Neutrino said:
captain_spalding said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
rIf I show him this.
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That will strengthen his argument.
Quite the contrary.
It will demonstrate that, in whatever form they choose to present the documents, they are legitimate. Including the use of capitals.
“There is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.”
That make Law void then
A cop carrying a baton and irritated by a pedantic protester is the law.
It highlights an embarrassing omission.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
My brother gets very emotional about itI don’t. I just find it interesting.
What does your brother do for a living?
your ‘brother’… sure…… taps nose
Law and Language from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Tau.Neutrino said:
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Are all caps considered to be English or Latin ?
What does the Australian Governments Style Guide say about using Caps ?
Why are caps used in legal documents ?
Story to follow.
We use all capitals for surname but that’s about it and not every does that anyway
Why use caps for names ?
We were taught at school to use just one capital for the start of a persons first, middle and last names.
Are all capitals considered to be proper English ?
All caps for family name helps to distinguish between given names and family name. That’s a huge help sometimes because some nations put the family name first and other nations put the family name last. So if given the opportunity I use caps on family name and include my middle initial to distinguish between me and everyone else.
The other use is in article titles. That helps to distinguish between author name and article title, without quotation marks. On TV as well.
And advertising.
mollwollfumble said:
All caps for family name helps to distinguish between given names and family name.
The Navy’s rule in documents is that ship names are always capitalised wherever they occur e.g HMAS ADELAIDE
captain_spalding said:
mollwollfumble said:All caps for family name helps to distinguish between given names and family name.
The Navy’s rule in documents is that ship names are always capitalised wherever they occur e.g HMAS ADELAIDE
If it was on the charge sheet for an offence as HMAS Adelaide, it wouldn’t get the charge thrown out, would it?
I’m now wondering which other countries do not recognize their own language in law.
I know we base our laws on The magma carta and English laws.
Does English law itself, recognize its own language in its Laws ?
English law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law
Australian Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Australia
party_pants said:
captain_spalding said:
mollwollfumble said:All caps for family name helps to distinguish between given names and family name.
The Navy’s rule in documents is that ship names are always capitalised wherever they occur e.g HMAS ADELAIDE
If it was on the charge sheet for an offence as HMAS Adelaide, it wouldn’t get the charge thrown out, would it?
You could try it on. I’m sure the presiding officer would enjoy hearing pedantries from a ‘sea-lawyer’. Would affect his decision and your punishment at. No, not at all.
captain_spalding said:
party_pants said:
captain_spalding said:The Navy’s rule in documents is that ship names are always capitalised wherever they occur e.g HMAS ADELAIDE
If it was on the charge sheet for an offence as HMAS Adelaide, it wouldn’t get the charge thrown out, would it?
You could try it on. I’m sure the presiding officer would enjoy hearing pedantries from a ‘sea-lawyer’. Would affect his decision and your punishment at. No, not at all.
Correction: ‘Wouldn’t affect his decision and your punishment at all.’
This bit is interesting
from link in chat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_English
Historical development
Modern legal English is based on standard English. Modern legal English contains, however, a number of unusual features. These features largely relate to terminology, linguistic structure, linguistic conventions, and punctuation, and have their roots in the history of the development of English as a legal language.
In prehistoric Britain, traditional common law was discussed in the vernacular (see Celtic law). The legal language and legal tradition changed with waves of conquerors over the following centuries. Roman Britain (after the conquest beginning in AD 43) followed Roman legal tradition, and its legal language was Latin. Following the Roman departure from Britain circa 410 and the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, the dominant tradition was instead Anglo-Saxon law, which was discussed in the Germanic vernacular (Anglo-Saxon, Old English), and written in Old English since circa 600, beginning with the Law of Æthelberht. Following the Norman invasion of England in 1066, Anglo-Norman French became the official language of legal proceedings in England for a period of nearly 300 years until the Pleading in English Act 1362 (and continued in minor use for another 300 years), while Medieval Latin was used for written records for over 650 years. Some English technical terms were retained, however (see Anglo-Saxon law: Language and dialect for details).
In legal pleadings, Anglo-Norman developed into Law French, from which many words in modern legal English are derived. These include property, estate, chattel, lease, executor, and tenant. The use of Law French during this period had an enduring influence on the general linguistic register of modern legal English. That use also accounts for some of the complex linguistic structures used in legal writing. In 1362, the Statute of Pleading was enacted, which stated that all legal proceedings should be conducted in English (but recorded in Latin). This marked the beginning of formal Legal English; Law French continued to be used in some forms into the 17th century, although Law French became increasingly degenerate.
From 1066, Latin was the language of formal records and statutes, and was replaced by English in the Proceedings in Courts of Justice Act 1730. However, because only learned persons were fluent in Latin, it never became the language of legal pleading or debate. The influence of Latin can be seen in a number of words and phrases such as ad hoc, de facto, bona fide, inter alia, and ultra vires, which remain in current use in legal writing (see Legal Latin).
Tau.Neutrino said:
I’m now wondering which other countries do not recognize their own language in law.I know we base our laws on The magma carta and English laws.
Does English law itself, recognize its own language in its Laws ?
English law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_lawAustralian Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Australia
The magma carta… if we’re not careful this volcanic principle will devour us all!
What we really need is to bring back capital punishment.
Woodie said:
What we really need is to bring back capital punishment.
Isn’t that what caps lock is for?
>All Caps and English
Sounds like it should be “All caps and no English”, some kind of put-down. Like “All hat and no cattle” but rather racist.
“They come over here and they wear our caps, but they still speak Zurundhi and eat those disgusting knerhgas or whatever they call them. They’re all caps and no English.”
Tau.Neutrino said:
What does the Australian Governments Style Guide say about using Caps ?
Witty Rejoinder said:
JudgeMental said:
Tau.Neutrino said:The story
My brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
how can it be latin?
See now your just engaging him on his level. Soon you’ll be decrying the use of caps for proper nouns.
or declining, VIZ
/* See now your just engaging him on his level. Soon you’ll be declining the use of caps for proper nouns. */
and in case anyone remembers good old semantics, i like to point out that /* See now your just engaging him on his level. */ is no grammatical error, i interpret it to mean
/* At this time, witness how you are playing fair and speaking to the other guy as a peer. */
SCIENCE said:
/* See now your just engaging him on his level. */ is no grammatical error…
It wouldn’t be, if it read ‘/* See now you’re just engaging him on his level. */
Tau.Neutrino said:
The storyMy brother got a warrant for a speeding fine, he has now paid it after a few court room visits for outstanding warrants, which he considered to be void because of caps and boxes. .
He is saying that Capitals are Latin are not proper English.
He is also saying that anything in boxes does not relate to the main text.
He has the latest Australian Style manual which does not say much about using capitals
Does it say in the Constitution or in Common law that English is the considered language and that either upper case or lower case can be used ?
If anyone can find that reference. I would like to show it to him.
This is an example of pseudolaw.
I didn’t realize anyone had actually named it.
buffy said:
I didn’t realize anyone had actually named it.
everything has been named.
Is your brother one of those sovereign free men types?
Neophyte said:
Is your brother one of those sovereign free men types?
dunno about sovereign free but he doesn’t sound the full quid.
JudgeMental said:
buffy said:I didn’t realize anyone had actually named it.
everything has been named.
Even The Un-nameable Namer?
maybe to highlight certain things, might be a persons name, like to draw attention to regard this person or that matter
the primary subject…..
In the matter of NEUTRINO versed CAPS LOCKS
A hypothetical
If there is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.
and legal English is based on no constitutionally recognized language.
then Australia has no official language, so does not recognize a language in law.
Therefore all of its laws are are void, any laws could be written in Koyra Chiini.
To fully accept legal English as law, the English language must be written into the constitution as the officially accepted language, with accepted fonts and upper and lower case rules and all of its Grammar established, until then legal English are words that hang in mid air.
Tau.Neutrino said:
A hypotheticalIf there is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.
and legal English is based on no constitutionally recognized language.
then Australia has no official language, so does not recognize a language in law.
Therefore all of its laws are are void, any laws could be written in Koyra Chiini.
To fully accept legal English as law, the English language must be written into the constitution as the officially accepted language, with accepted fonts and upper and lower case rules and all of its Grammar established, until then legal English are words that hang in mid air.
look into ‘lawspeak’ and ‘legal English’ as terms. I think you will find that legal English use differs from ‘normal’ English, but is well accepted as a sublanguage, and completely constitutional.
>To fully accept legal English as law, the English language must be written into the constitution as the officially accepted language, with accepted fonts and upper and lower case rules and all of its Grammar established, until then legal English are words that hang in mid air.
there’s generally a gist, mate, and what’s this about hanging my grandma.
:-)
Tau.Neutrino said:
A hypotheticalIf there is no constitutionally nor legally prescribed language in Australia.
and legal English is based on no constitutionally recognized language.
then Australia has no official language, so does not recognize a language in law.
Therefore all of its laws are are void, any laws could be written in Koyra Chiini.
To fully accept legal English as law, the English language must be written into the constitution as the officially accepted language, with accepted fonts and upper and lower case rules and all of its Grammar established, until then legal English are words that hang in mid air.
no.
not slipping into some sort of linguistic determinism now, neutrino.
won’t be long you’ll be assigning each individual letter of words with meanings, and petitioning the government to have it written up as law.
transition said:
not slipping into some sort of linguistic determinism now, neutrino.won’t be long you’ll be assigning each individual letter of words with meanings, and petitioning the government to have it written up as law.
Human rights was left out of the 1900 Federal constitution
so was recognizing English for using it for law.
What has that got to do with Linguistic determinism ?
Linguistic determinism is the idea that language and its structures limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought processes such as categorization, memory, and perception. The term implies that people who speak different languages as their mother tongues have different thought processes.
Our language has not limited our knowledge
I dont think people who speak different languages have different thought processes
I don’t see the connection.
What a thing to leave out, formally recognizing English to use in a court, from the Federal constitution.
I take no responsibility for peoples decisions 118 years ago .
>Our language has not limited our knowledge
echoes of the smith virus.
.
He’s in a very odd position, unclear and difficult to understand.
From what i’ve seen, the argument seems to be based on his brother’s obsession with escaping some legal penalty, not because he’s not guilty, but because he thinks he can argue technicalities about capital letters and boxes on forms and correspondence.
The idea seems to be that using capitals, and putting additional information in boxes, somehow makes it into something that isn’t acceptable as English, and something that cannot/should not be interpreted as English, because our Constitution doesn’t specifically define what is and isn’t ‘English’, which somehow renders the whole of the documents and the associated charges invalid.
I suppose the next argument will be that if you read out a law in a loud voice, as that renders it invalid for the same reasons.
captain_spalding said:
He’s in a very odd position, unclear and difficult to understand.From what i’ve seen, the argument seems to be based on his brother’s obsession with escaping some legal penalty, not because he’s not guilty, but because he thinks he can argue technicalities about capital letters and boxes on forms and correspondence.
The idea seems to be that using capitals, and putting additional information in boxes, somehow makes it into something that isn’t acceptable as English, and something that cannot/should not be interpreted as English, because our Constitution doesn’t specifically define what is and isn’t ‘English’, which somehow renders the whole of the documents and the associated charges invalid.
I suppose the next argument will be that if you read out a law in a loud voice, as that renders it invalid for the same reasons.
ie: fail.
“The oldest written set of laws known to us is the Code of Hammurabi. He was the king of Babylon between 1792 BC and 1758 BC. Hammurabi is said to have been handed these laws by Shamash, the God of Justice. The laws were carved on huge stone slabs and placed all over the city so that people would know about them. Judges were appointed to see that they were obeyed.
This is an example of the philosophy that influenced their law making: ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. Whatever was done to the victim, then the aggressor would be repaid in a similar fashion.” http://www.civicsandcitizenship.edu.au/cce/pl_early_laws,9534.html
roughbarked said:
“The oldest written set of laws known to us is the Code of Hammurabi. He was the king of Babylon between 1792 BC and 1758 BC. Hammurabi is said to have been handed these laws by Shamash, the God of Justice. The laws were carved on huge stone slabs and placed all over the city so that people would know about them. Judges were appointed to see that they were obeyed.This is an example of the philosophy that influenced their law making: ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. Whatever was done to the victim, then the aggressor would be repaid in a similar fashion.” http://www.civicsandcitizenship.edu.au/cce/pl_early_laws,9534.html
QI
Searching for Hammurabi and Abraham gives some QI results as well.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
“The oldest written set of laws known to us is the Code of Hammurabi. He was the king of Babylon between 1792 BC and 1758 BC. Hammurabi is said to have been handed these laws by Shamash, the God of Justice. The laws were carved on huge stone slabs and placed all over the city so that people would know about them. Judges were appointed to see that they were obeyed.This is an example of the philosophy that influenced their law making: ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. Whatever was done to the victim, then the aggressor would be repaid in a similar fashion.” http://www.civicsandcitizenship.edu.au/cce/pl_early_laws,9534.html
QI
Searching for Hammurabi and Abraham gives some QI results as well.
WTF could read them in 1792 BC.
Peak Warming Man said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
“The oldest written set of laws known to us is the Code of Hammurabi. He was the king of Babylon between 1792 BC and 1758 BC. Hammurabi is said to have been handed these laws by Shamash, the God of Justice. The laws were carved on huge stone slabs and placed all over the city so that people would know about them. Judges were appointed to see that they were obeyed.This is an example of the philosophy that influenced their law making: ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. Whatever was done to the victim, then the aggressor would be repaid in a similar fashion.” http://www.civicsandcitizenship.edu.au/cce/pl_early_laws,9534.html
The Ancients.
QISearching for Hammurabi and Abraham gives some QI results as well.
WTF could read them in 1792 BC.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Didn’t Hammurabi have something to say about not making lousy beer?
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Didn’t Hammurabi have something to say about not making lousy beer?
Peak Warming Man said:
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Didn’t Hammurabi have something to say about not making lousy beer?
Oops.
I apologise for the formatting of my question, assure you that it is in English, and request that it please be considered, m’lud.
captain_spalding said:
Peak Warming Man said:
captain_spalding said:Didn’t Hammurabi have something to say about not making lousy beer?
Oops.
I apologise for the formatting of my question, assure you that it is in English, and request that it please be considered, m’lud.
shakes head
Hammurabi would kick your ancient arse.
Peak Warming Man said:
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Searching for Hammurabi and Abraham gives some QI results as well.
Didn’t Hammurabi have something to say about not making lousy beer?
The law can be pedantic on things.
Look at the double citizenship circus.
So why isn’t the law pedantic on the use and authorization of the English language itself.
I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
Look at other countries and which ones consider their language official and authorized by the government for use in a court of Law
We do this for money, money is recognized and authorized for use by banks and by the public.
Why not the English language itself ?
Has England ever formally recognized and authorized its language in its constitution ?
Has America ?
Tau.Neutrino said:
I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The law can be pedantic on things.Look at the double citizenship circus.
So why isn’t the law pedantic on the use and authorization of the English language itself.
I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
Look at other countries and which ones consider their language official and authorized by the government for use in a court of Law
We do this for money, money is recognized and authorized for use by banks and by the public.
Why not the English language itself ?
Has England ever formally recognized and authorized its language in its constitution ?
Has America ?
>>I feel the point stands.
I thought it was your brother whose idea this was…
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The law can be pedantic on things.Look at the double citizenship circus.
So why isn’t the law pedantic on the use and authorization of the English language itself.
I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
Look at other countries and which ones consider their language official and authorized by the government for use in a court of Law
We do this for money, money is recognized and authorized for use by banks and by the public.
Why not the English language itself ?
Has England ever formally recognized and authorized its language in its constitution ?
Has America ?
>>I feel the point stands.
I thought it was your brother whose idea this was…
Maybe he doesn’t actually have a brother?
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
So everyone else is wrong?
No, just you, and me, and Spalding, and PWM, and Cymek, and Arts, and Michel V, and Boris … etc.
party_pants said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
So everyone else is wrong?No, just you, and me, and Spalding, and PWM, and Cymek, and Arts, and Michel V, and Boris … etc.
Oi!!!
Tau.Neutrino said:
The law can be pedantic on things.Look at the double citizenship circus.
So why isn’t the law pedantic on the use and authorization of the English language itself.
I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
Look at other countries and which ones consider their language official and authorized by the government for use in a court of Law
We do this for money, money is recognized and authorized for use by banks and by the public.
Why not the English language itself ?
Has England ever formally recognized and authorized its language in its constitution ?
Has America ?
Surprising as it may seem, the law in Australia (and other countries with a similar system) considers not only what is written in legislation, but also how this wording has been interpreted in previous cases, and what might be considered reasonable under all the specific circumstances.
In general, it would not be considered reasonable to ignore a clear breach of the law because of some minor bureaucratic inconsistency, that did not affect the defence case in any significant way.
sibeen said:
party_pants said:
Witty Rejoinder said:So everyone else is wrong?
No, just you, and me, and Spalding, and PWM, and Cymek, and Arts, and Michel V, and Boris … etc.
Oi!!!
I didn’t want to name you specifically in case you took offence.
Can’t win sometimes.
party_pants said:
sibeen said:
party_pants said:No, just you, and me, and Spalding, and PWM, and Cymek, and Arts, and Michel V, and Boris … etc.
Oi!!!
I didn’t want to name you specifically in case you took offence.
Can’t win sometimes.
admit it, you are too lazy to type everyone’s names.
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:
sibeen said:Oi!!!
I didn’t want to name you specifically in case you took offence.
Can’t win sometimes.
admit it, you are too lazy to type everyone’s names.
I’m minding a pot on the stove in between posts.
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The law can be pedantic on things.Look at the double citizenship circus.
So why isn’t the law pedantic on the use and authorization of the English language itself.
I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
Look at other countries and which ones consider their language official and authorized by the government for use in a court of Law
We do this for money, money is recognized and authorized for use by banks and by the public.
Why not the English language itself ?
Has England ever formally recognized and authorized its language in its constitution ?
Has America ?
>>I feel the point stands.
I thought it was your brother whose idea this was…
That was the usage of uppercase, lowercase and boxes in a warrant.
He objected to the usage of his last name in all uppercase.
I’m still looking a bit further into the history of the law and the usage of English itself.
Its still a work in progress.
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:
party_pants said:I didn’t want to name you specifically in case you took offence.
Can’t win sometimes.
admit it, you are too lazy to type everyone’s names.
I’m minding a pot on the stove in between posts.
It will never boil…
roughbarked said:
Stumpy_seahorse said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The law can be pedantic on things.Look at the double citizenship circus.
So why isn’t the law pedantic on the use and authorization of the English language itself.
I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
Look at other countries and which ones consider their language official and authorized by the government for use in a court of Law
We do this for money, money is recognized and authorized for use by banks and by the public.
Why not the English language itself ?
Has England ever formally recognized and authorized its language in its constitution ?
Has America ?
>>I feel the point stands.
I thought it was your brother whose idea this was…
Maybe he doesn’t actually have a brother?
I have two younger brothers and two younger sisters.
buffy said:
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:admit it, you are too lazy to type everyone’s names.
I’m minding a pot on the stove in between posts.
It will never boil…
There is that.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The law can be pedantic on things.Look at the double citizenship circus.
So why isn’t the law pedantic on the use and authorization of the English language itself.
I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
Look at other countries and which ones consider their language official and authorized by the government for use in a court of Law
We do this for money, money is recognized and authorized for use by banks and by the public.
Why not the English language itself ?
Has England ever formally recognized and authorized its language in its constitution ?
Has America ?
England doesn’t have a constitution.
buffy said:
party_pants said:
roughbarked said:admit it, you are too lazy to type everyone’s names.
I’m minding a pot on the stove in between posts.
It will never boil…
lights gas
… there, that should do it.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The law can be pedantic on things.Look at the double citizenship circus.
So why isn’t the law pedantic on the use and authorization of the English language itself.
I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
Look at other countries and which ones consider their language official and authorized by the government for use in a court of Law
We do this for money, money is recognized and authorized for use by banks and by the public.
Why not the English language itself ?
Has England ever formally recognized and authorized its language in its constitution ?
Has America ?
Surprising as it may seem, the law in Australia (and other countries with a similar system) considers not only what is written in legislation, but also how this wording has been interpreted in previous cases, and what might be considered reasonable under all the specific circumstances.
In general, it would not be considered reasonable to ignore a clear breach of the law because of some minor bureaucratic inconsistency, that did not affect the defence case in any significant way.
The l;aw is pedantic on things
I’m pedantic,
I would make a good Law student, and an excellent solicitor
Pedantic is good. Pedantic research.
Definition
Excessively concerned with minor details or rules; over scrupulous.
This is what helps makes good investigative journalists, good police detectives, good solicitors ,judges, law makers, public servants etc
And it makes for good argument, I get to see what other weakness there are in logic and ethics .
Bubblecar said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The law can be pedantic on things.Look at the double citizenship circus.
So why isn’t the law pedantic on the use and authorization of the English language itself.
I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
Look at other countries and which ones consider their language official and authorized by the government for use in a court of Law
We do this for money, money is recognized and authorized for use by banks and by the public.
Why not the English language itself ?
Has England ever formally recognized and authorized its language in its constitution ?
Has America ?
England doesn’t have a constitution.
I think all constitutions written in English should start with the statement:
“No statement within this constitution that is written in English shall be considered binding.”
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The law can be pedantic on things.Look at the double citizenship circus.
So why isn’t the law pedantic on the use and authorization of the English language itself.
I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
Look at other countries and which ones consider their language official and authorized by the government for use in a court of Law
We do this for money, money is recognized and authorized for use by banks and by the public.
Why not the English language itself ?
Has England ever formally recognized and authorized its language in its constitution ?
Has America ?
Surprising as it may seem, the law in Australia (and other countries with a similar system) considers not only what is written in legislation, but also how this wording has been interpreted in previous cases, and what might be considered reasonable under all the specific circumstances.
In general, it would not be considered reasonable to ignore a clear breach of the law because of some minor bureaucratic inconsistency, that did not affect the defence case in any significant way.
The l;aw is pedantic on things
I’m pedantic,
I would make a good Law student, and an excellent solicitor
Pedantic is good. Pedantic research.
Definition
Excessively concerned with minor details or rules; over scrupulous.This is what helps makes good investigative journalists, good police detectives, good solicitors ,judges, law makers, public servants etc
And it makes for good argument, I get to see what other weakness there are in logic and ethics .
It depends what you mean by pedantic.
If a pedantic interpretation of a legal statement is found by a court to be inconsistent with the clear intent of the law, then it can and should be interpreted in a non-pedantic way.
That may not be the popular image of how the law works, but it is how it works.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The law can be pedantic on things.Look at the double citizenship circus.
So why isn’t the law pedantic on the use and authorization of the English language itself.
I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
Look at other countries and which ones consider their language official and authorized by the government for use in a court of Law
We do this for money, money is recognized and authorized for use by banks and by the public.
Why not the English language itself ?
Has England ever formally recognized and authorized its language in its constitution ?
Has America ?
England doesn’t have a constitution.
I think all constitutions written in English should start with the statement:
“No statement within this constitution that is written in English shall be considered binding.”
Constitutions should recognize the countries language and for it to be authorized by the Government for use in legal documents.
A referendum would fix it.
The wording could be much better.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Constitutions should recognize the countries language and for it to be authorized by the Government for use in legal documents.A referendum would fix it.
The wording could be much better.
How would this benefit anybody?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Surprising as it may seem, the law in Australia (and other countries with a similar system) considers not only what is written in legislation, but also how this wording has been interpreted in previous cases, and what might be considered reasonable under all the specific circumstances.
In general, it would not be considered reasonable to ignore a clear breach of the law because of some minor bureaucratic inconsistency, that did not affect the defence case in any significant way.
The l;aw is pedantic on things
I’m pedantic,
I would make a good Law student, and an excellent solicitor
Pedantic is good. Pedantic research.
Definition
Excessively concerned with minor details or rules; over scrupulous.This is what helps makes good investigative journalists, good police detectives, good solicitors ,judges, law makers, public servants etc
And it makes for good argument, I get to see what other weakness there are in logic and ethics .
It depends what you mean by pedantic.
If a pedantic interpretation of a legal statement is found by a court to be inconsistent with the clear intent of the law, then it can and should be interpreted in a non-pedantic way.
That may not be the popular image of how the law works, but it is how it works.
Someone could walk into a court and declare any charges written in common English and Legal English against them to be all invalid as common English and Legal English was never authorized by the Federal government for spoken use in a court and written in court documents and / or transcribed from speech to text.
We can be thankful money is recognized and authorized for use.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Someone could walk into a court and declare any charges written in common English and Legal English against them to be all invalid as common English and Legal English was never authorized by the Federal government for spoken use in a court and written in court documents and / or transcribed from speech to text.We can be thankful money is recognized and authorized for use.
People can declare whatever they like, but if the declaration is trivial, as in this case, the declaration will be ignored, quite rightly.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The law can be pedantic on things.Look at the double citizenship circus.
So why isn’t the law pedantic on the use and authorization of the English language itself.
I feel the point stands.
Those that feel it silly need to look a bit more closely.
Look at other countries and which ones consider their language official and authorized by the government for use in a court of Law
We do this for money, money is recognized and authorized for use by banks and by the public.
Why not the English language itself ?
Has England ever formally recognized and authorized its language in its constitution ?
Has America ?
Surprising as it may seem, the law in Australia (and other countries with a similar system) considers not only what is written in legislation, but also how this wording has been interpreted in previous cases, and what might be considered reasonable under all the specific circumstances.
In general, it would not be considered reasonable to ignore a clear breach of the law because of some minor bureaucratic inconsistency, that did not affect the defence case in any significant way.
The l;aw is pedantic on things
I’m pedantic,
I would make a good Law student, and an excellent solicitor
Pedantic is good. Pedantic research.
Definition
Excessively concerned with minor details or rules; over scrupulous.This is what helps makes good investigative journalists, good police detectives, good solicitors ,judges, law makers, public servants etc
And it makes for good argument, I get to see what other weakness there are in logic and ethics .
If you got into politics your stalkers would arise ten-fold.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Someone could walk into a court and declare any charges written in common English and Legal English against them to be all invalid as common English and Legal English was never authorized by the Federal government for spoken use in a court and written in court documents and / or transcribed from speech to text.We can be thankful money is recognized and authorized for use.
People can declare whatever they like, but if the declaration is trivial, as in this case, the declaration will be ignored, quite rightly.
So can say what ever you like as well. Free speech.
The government has formally ignored the use of English for use in a court of law
The declaration is not binding without it.
There is no Trust.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Surprising as it may seem, the law in Australia (and other countries with a similar system) considers not only what is written in legislation, but also how this wording has been interpreted in previous cases, and what might be considered reasonable under all the specific circumstances.
In general, it would not be considered reasonable to ignore a clear breach of the law because of some minor bureaucratic inconsistency, that did not affect the defence case in any significant way.
The l;aw is pedantic on things
I’m pedantic,
I would make a good Law student, and an excellent solicitor
Pedantic is good. Pedantic research.
Definition
Excessively concerned with minor details or rules; over scrupulous.This is what helps makes good investigative journalists, good police detectives, good solicitors ,judges, law makers, public servants etc
And it makes for good argument, I get to see what other weakness there are in logic and ethics .
If you got into politics your stalkers would arise ten-fold.
I’d make a home in the basement part that is not finished
Fit a good home in that space.
probably a caravan
not a marbleized apartment
which would be better.
and an underground heated pool.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Someone could walk into a court and declare any charges written in common English and Legal English against them to be all invalid as common English and Legal English was never authorized by the Federal government for spoken use in a court and written in court documents and / or transcribed from speech to text.We can be thankful money is recognized and authorized for use.
People can declare whatever they like, but if the declaration is trivial, as in this case, the declaration will be ignored, quite rightly.
So can say what ever you like as well. Free speech.
The government has formally ignored the use of English for use in a court of law
The declaration is not binding without it.
There is no Trust.
What declaration are you talking about?
What does a pedantic insistence on precise definition of language, down to the most trivial detail, have to do with trust?
Why did you use an upper case T?
How would people who do not have a good knowledge of English grammar cope in this system?
This bit in Federal Parliament is not finished yet
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/the-house-annabel-crabb-secret-side-of-parliament/8775354
The Federal Constitution is not finished properly yet either!
I was going to post a characteristically witty rejoinder to this madness but I couldn’t work out how to use the colours or change the font size. mutter
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:People can declare whatever they like, but if the declaration is trivial, as in this case, the declaration will be ignored, quite rightly.
So can say what ever you like as well. Free speech.
The government has formally ignored the use of English for use in a court of law
The declaration is not binding without it.
There is no Trust.
What declaration are you talking about?
What does a pedantic insistence on precise definition of language, down to the most trivial detail, have to do with trust?
Why did you use an upper case T?
How would people who do not have a good knowledge of English grammar cope in this system?
>>>What declaration are you talking about?
I meant the Federal constitution.
>>>What does a pedantic insistence on precise definition of language, down to the most trivial detail, have to do with trust?
A lot, things that should have been considered and done properly in the beginning but were not.
The Federal constitution is missing the bit on human rights and the bit about formal recognition of the English language we use in the courts
Would you trust a justice system that was not considered properly ?
Sorry to be pedantic.
Witty Rejoinder said:
I was going to post a characteristically witty rejoinder to this madness but I couldn’t work out how to use the colours or change the font size. mutter
The Australian Government has a style manual
Latest version
https://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/publications/style-manual
https://www.booktopia.com.au/style-manual-dcita/prod9780701636487.html?source=pla&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-76notPL3AIVDq6WCh1UzQinEAYYAiABEgLzufD_BwE
Mine is a few years old now.
Related Links
Tau.Neutrino said:
>>>What does a pedantic insistence on precise definition of language, down to the most trivial detail, have to do with trust?
A lot, things that should have been considered and done properly in the beginning but were not.
The Federal constitution is missing the bit on human rights and the bit about formal recognition of the English language we use in the courts
Would you trust a justice system that was not considered properly ?
Sorry to be pedantic.
Human rights is a different topic, feel free to start a new thread on it.
The question is, would a statement that English is the official language of Australia, written in the Constitution of Australia, which is written in English, be of any benefit to anyone.
The answer is, no, it wouldn’t.
This doesn’t mean that the justice system has not been considered properly.
The justice system is in fact under constant review.
That doesn’t mean that it is perfect, but lack of rules on where upper case letters should be used is not one of its faults.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Would you trust a justice system that was not considered properly ?
captain_spalding said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Would you trust a justice system that was not considered properly ?
Look at it this way, I come from a background of computer networking, library technican.
computer programming involves system design and analysis
Programmers build code and test it out.
Hackers can improve the security of a system by exploiting weaknesses in software code, bios code flash ram etc
Hackers can also exploit it for criminal purposes.
Systems become stronger with observation, criticism, looking at things from a different perspective.
Apple said “Think different.”
It became a poster and went virile
It’s a good concept.
We had a poster on the wall in the Mac computer room for Multimedia studies in 1990
“The Federal constitution is missing the bit on human rights”
there are five explicit individual rights in the Constitution. These are the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117).
In recent years the High Court has found that additional rights for individuals may be necessarily implied by the language and structure of the Constitution. In 1992 the Court decided that Australia’s form of parliamentary democracy (dictated by the Constitution) necessarily requires a degree of freedom for individuals to discuss and debate political issues.
Arts said:
“The Federal constitution is missing the bit on human rights”there are five explicit individual rights in the Constitution. These are the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117).
In recent years the High Court has found that additional rights for individuals may be necessarily implied by the language and structure of the Constitution. In 1992 the Court decided that Australia’s form of parliamentary democracy (dictated by the Constitution) necessarily requires a degree of freedom for individuals to discuss and debate political issues.
Tau suggests to us that this quote is missing the words “in English” at the end.
captain_spalding said:
Arts said:
“The Federal constitution is missing the bit on human rights”there are five explicit individual rights in the Constitution. These are the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117).
In recent years the High Court has found that additional rights for individuals may be necessarily implied by the language and structure of the Constitution. In 1992 the Court decided that Australia’s form of parliamentary democracy (dictated by the Constitution) necessarily requires a degree of freedom for individuals to discuss and debate political issues.
Tau suggests to us that this quote is missing the words “in English” at the end.
I have written in this thread about the specialized language of our legal system/documents/laws… it was ignored.
Tau.Neutrino said:
ROFL.
Yes, Jobs was thinking differently…“how do I rip off the next round of schmucks and make them pay double of what a PC would cost to do the same thing”.
Arts said:
captain_spalding said:
Arts said:
“The Federal constitution is missing the bit on human rights”there are five explicit individual rights in the Constitution. These are the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117).
In recent years the High Court has found that additional rights for individuals may be necessarily implied by the language and structure of the Constitution. In 1992 the Court decided that Australia’s form of parliamentary democracy (dictated by the Constitution) necessarily requires a degree of freedom for individuals to discuss and debate political issues.
Tau suggests to us that this quote is missing the words “in English” at the end.
I have written in this thread about the specialized language of our legal system/documents/laws… it was ignored.
I have been reading posts
I’m not a power reader, there’s 128 pages in the constitution
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution.aspx
sibeen said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
ROFL.
Yes, Jobs was thinking differently…“how do I rip off the next round of schmucks and make them pay double of what a PC would cost to do the same thing”.
Although the Apples are still running and and the PC’s are piled up in millions in landfill or backyard recyclers.
roughbarked said:
sibeen said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
ROFL.
Yes, Jobs was thinking differently…“how do I rip off the next round of schmucks and make them pay double of what a PC would cost to do the same thing”.
Although the Apples are still running and and the PC’s are piled up in millions in landfill or backyard recyclers.
However, the i-Phones are discarded in their multitudes when the next iteration comes along, and all the Apple addicts have to be the first kid on the block with one.
captain_spalding said:
roughbarked said:
sibeen said:ROFL.
Yes, Jobs was thinking differently…“how do I rip off the next round of schmucks and make them pay double of what a PC would cost to do the same thing”.
Although the Apples are still running and and the PC’s are piled up in millions in landfill or backyard recyclers.
However, the i-Phones are discarded in their multitudes when the next iteration comes along, and all the Apple addicts have to be the first kid on the block with one.
Dunno. Haven’t really ever met one of these mythical Apple addicts.
roughbarked said:
captain_spalding said:
roughbarked said:Although the Apples are still running and and the PC’s are piled up in millions in landfill or backyard recyclers.
However, the i-Phones are discarded in their multitudes when the next iteration comes along, and all the Apple addicts have to be the first kid on the block with one.
Dunno. Haven’t really ever met one of these mythical Apple addicts.
You only have to wait for the next ‘hot item’ from Apple to be announced, and go to an ‘Apple store’ in a capital city – they’ll be queued up outside before opening time.
captain_spalding said:
roughbarked said:
captain_spalding said:However, the i-Phones are discarded in their multitudes when the next iteration comes along, and all the Apple addicts have to be the first kid on the block with one.
Dunno. Haven’t really ever met one of these mythical Apple addicts.
You only have to wait for the next ‘hot item’ from Apple to be announced, and go to an ‘Apple store’ in a capital city – they’ll be queued up outside before opening time.
I avoid cities.
roughbarked said:
captain_spalding said:
roughbarked said:Dunno. Haven’t really ever met one of these mythical Apple addicts.
You only have to wait for the next ‘hot item’ from Apple to be announced, and go to an ‘Apple store’ in a capital city – they’ll be queued up outside before opening time.
I avoid cities.
Most wise of you.
captain_spalding said:
roughbarked said:
sibeen said:ROFL.
Yes, Jobs was thinking differently…“how do I rip off the next round of schmucks and make them pay double of what a PC would cost to do the same thing”.
Although the Apples are still running and and the PC’s are piled up in millions in landfill or backyard recyclers.
However, the i-Phones are discarded in their multitudes when the next iteration comes along, and all the Apple addicts have to be the first kid on the block with one.
Eh?
I seriously doubt that the average life-span of an Apple desk-top or lap-top is significantly different to the equivalent PC.
The Rev Dodgson said:
captain_spalding said:
roughbarked said:Although the Apples are still running and and the PC’s are piled up in millions in landfill or backyard recyclers.
However, the i-Phones are discarded in their multitudes when the next iteration comes along, and all the Apple addicts have to be the first kid on the block with one.
Eh?
I seriously doubt that the average life-span of an Apple desk-top or lap-top is significantly different to the equivalent PC.
I’ve still got all mine and they all still work. Have you?
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I seriously doubt that the average life-span of an Apple desk-top or lap-top is significantly different to the equivalent PC.
I’ve still got all mine and they all still work. Have you?
If they all still work, why did you replacethem?
captain_spalding said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I seriously doubt that the average life-span of an Apple desk-top or lap-top is significantly different to the equivalent PC.
I’ve still got all mine and they all still work. Have you?
If they all still work, why did you replacethem?
Because they don’t work on the internet. The world has moved on. They work perfectly well for file storage and heavy duty work. Simply transfer what is needed to the laptop.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
captain_spalding said:However, the i-Phones are discarded in their multitudes when the next iteration comes along, and all the Apple addicts have to be the first kid on the block with one.
Eh?
I seriously doubt that the average life-span of an Apple desk-top or lap-top is significantly different to the equivalent PC.
I’ve still got all mine and they all still work. Have you?
I imagine most people throw out their old machines when they get a new one, whether they’re working or not. PC or Mac, computer upgrades were essential simply because of speed, storage capacity etc.
My back-up PC is 13 years old and still works. This “new” PC is getting pretty old, too.
roughbarked said:
captain_spalding said:
roughbarked said:I’ve still got all mine and they all still work. Have you?
If they all still work, why did you replacethem?
Because they don’t work on the internet. The world has moved on. They work perfectly well for file storage and heavy duty work. Simply transfer what is needed to the laptop.
Ah.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
captain_spalding said:However, the i-Phones are discarded in their multitudes when the next iteration comes along, and all the Apple addicts have to be the first kid on the block with one.
Eh?
I seriously doubt that the average life-span of an Apple desk-top or lap-top is significantly different to the equivalent PC.
I’ve still got all mine and they all still work. Have you?
I seriously doubt that your record is typical of the average Apple user.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Eh?
I seriously doubt that the average life-span of an Apple desk-top or lap-top is significantly different to the equivalent PC.
I’ve still got all mine and they all still work. Have you?
I seriously doubt that your record is typical of the average Apple user.
The cult of Apple convinces people to line up to be the first to buy the new products, scary
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:I’ve still got all mine and they all still work. Have you?
I seriously doubt that your record is typical of the average Apple user.
The cult of Apple convinces people to line up to be the first to buy the new products, scary
It’s something of a religion, with its own messiah, creed, relics and icons, tithes and donations.
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:I’ve still got all mine and they all still work. Have you?
I seriously doubt that your record is typical of the average Apple user.
The cult of Apple convinces people to line up to be the first to buy the new products, scary
I’ve never bought a single Apple product and never intend to.
Bubblecar said:
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I seriously doubt that your record is typical of the average Apple user.
The cult of Apple convinces people to line up to be the first to buy the new products, scary
I’ve never bought a single Apple product and never intend to.
Me either the apple with a bite of out it is very biblical, good old Eve
Bubblecar said:
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I seriously doubt that your record is typical of the average Apple user.
The cult of Apple convinces people to line up to be the first to buy the new products, scary
I’ve never bought a single Apple product and never intend to.
Same here.
I recall reading a computer mag in the late 80’s, with a rant about how horrible Apple Macs were.
I thought it was a bit over the top, until I actually used one a few weeks later, and found myself agreeing with everything in the rant.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:
Cymek said:The cult of Apple convinces people to line up to be the first to buy the new products, scary
I’ve never bought a single Apple product and never intend to.
Same here.
I recall reading a computer mag in the late 80’s, with a rant about how horrible Apple Macs were.
I thought it was a bit over the top, until I actually used one a few weeks later, and found myself agreeing with everything in the rant.
I was turned right off by the old Mac ad campaigns, targeted at “creative types” like me, emphasising how special we are compared with the mob.
So special that we’re supposed to make do with overpriced computers that don’t work with 90% of the software out there, but only the riff-raff need that stuff…
Bubblecar said:
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I seriously doubt that your record is typical of the average Apple user.
The cult of Apple convinces people to line up to be the first to buy the new products, scary
I’ve never bought a single Apple product and never intend to.
Never used a Mac so I can’t comment. OTOH, nerdy son was forced to use them at school and hasn’t stopped bagging out Apple since. OTOOH Apple is poised to bust the $1 trillion market cap mark.. so they must be doing something right.
Ian said:
Bubblecar said:
Cymek said:The cult of Apple convinces people to line up to be the first to buy the new products, scary
I’ve never bought a single Apple product and never intend to.
Never used a Mac so I can’t comment. OTOH, nerdy son was forced to use them at school and hasn’t stopped bagging out Apple since. OTOOH Apple is poised to bust the $1 trillion market cap mark.. so they must be doing something right.
Aren’t they aimed at people who don’t have much computer/phone knowledge and don’t care they are restricted with what they can do with the product
I have always had an apple phone and not a complaint about it. Works well, does what it’s supposed to, the tech help is good and useful.. I don’t use a mac, so can’t comment on them.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Eh?
I seriously doubt that the average life-span of an Apple desk-top or lap-top is significantly different to the equivalent PC.
I’ve still got all mine and they all still work. Have you?
I seriously doubt that your record is typical of the average Apple user.
I’m not a stereotype of anyone.