Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Islander,
they cant spell ‘licence’ – or that’s an American (USA) one
Americans use licence as both the verb and noun, so a licence spelled as a license is unlikely to be from the US.
The OED ((c) 1971) has the following note:
The spelling license, though still often met with, has no justification in the case of the sb. In the case of the vb., on the other hand, while the spelling licence is etymologically unobjectionable, license is supported by analogy with the rule universally adopted in the similar pair of related words, practice sb. practise vb., prohpecy sb., prophesy vb. (the rule seems to have arisen from imitation of the spelling of pairs like advice sb. advise vb. which expresses a phonetic distinction of historical origin.)…
Johnson and Todd give only the form license both for the sb. and vb. … Recent Dicts., however, almost universally have license both for sb. and vb., either without alternative or in the first place.
[ bold added ]
It would appear that the licence = noun, license = verb rule is of relatively recent vintage.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Russell Brown,
You could apply this test to virtually any legislative vote in the House and reach the same conclusion. I’m unsure what its real significance is in this context.
That kinda was my point. Phil was making a claim about the voting on a piece of legislation that I considered unlikely to be true about almost any piece of legislation.
Your contention is, I take it, that most MPs did not have a full technical grasp of the relevant medical science – and instead relied on expert advice in casting their votes.
No. My contention is that most MPs don't even know the effect of the laws they are passing, and vote the way they do simply because that is what their party is doing. Half a dozen people from each of the major parties, on most pieces of legislation, will know, and those will be the ones who speak. They may know the evidence, or some of it, but the other MPs mostly don't turn up. On something like banning cigarette displays, most MPs may know that the bill does that, and when asked to defend their vote will say something to the effect "we need to do something about smoking" or "too many people are dying from cigarettes" etc. with no idea whatsoever of whether the change is considered likely to make any difference whatsoever. Mostly, it will be emotional, not scientific, and in many cases, not really based in any way on what the law would actually do.
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Phil Lyth,
In 2012, we have reached the point where the harmfulness of tobacco is generally accepted, just as it is accepted that the earth is round. In the third reading debate last year, John Boscawen of all people quoted Helen Clark saying around 1989 that the reason for the workplace ban was because tobacco kills.
Next time you go with an analogy like this, could you use "the Earth revolves around the Sun", rather that "the Earth is Round"? The later was pretty much known in 2012 BC (okay, 600 BC, but still) =)
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the "of all people" crack at John Boscawen. He did, after all, spend a bit of maiden address talking about how awesome Michael Cullen was, and he was well-known for his anti-tobacco views throughout his political career.
-
I surrender.
But then I did read the Hansard of the debate.
Without having done so, can I put some money on emotion, not scientific argument, coming to the fore?
-
OnPoint: Association of Community…, in reply to Phil Lyth,
For the record, the science convinced 97.5% of MPs to vote for the third reading of Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill last July and so ban power walls in New Zealand.
Evidence, please. Let's start with proof that 97.5% of MPs actually know what the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill does, and then we can move to evidence that they each made up their own mind on how to vote on the bill, and each was convinced by science and not something else.
-
How many of the facts reported in our media are this dodgy?
Whenever I come across something I know about, I tend to notice things that have been gotten wrong... e.g. only people who vote to change MMP get to vote in the second referendum question; or, three strikes means XYZ.
-
Capture: Roamin' Holiday, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Jeez Graeme, I worked on that thinly drawn knock-off of The Waltons. I also counted five titles I’ve whored myself out on in your Wikipedia link. Not something I’m proud of, but one likes to eat.
It was out of love, Dude. Hanna Barbera won seven Oscars. They put These are the Days out of DVD, and I'll buy it :-)
-
Capture: Roamin' Holiday, in reply to Joe Wylie,
The bottom of the barrel of the Flintstones/Jetsons franchise. Died after one crappily-drawn season, sparing the world from possible further knock-offs such as The French Letters
Ye of little faith. Have you ever looked at the list of Hanna Barbera series? Many many more one-season not-wonders followed, one or two with historical themes.
-
Legal Beagle: 14 Pages of Democracy, in reply to David Hood,
-
Via Facebook:
"Briefcase" - Judge Adams's first book of poetry:
After an argument with his wife, Verity, Jason Button threw a stapler which struck her on the face. Is he guilty of violent assault? Or was it just a matter of bad luck?
Briefcase, the first book of poetry by Judge and poet John Adams, is a mélange of poems – in traditional and experimental forms – and other texts: affidavits, police reports, a sudoku puzzle, court transcripts, a menu, wills and commentaries.
A disordered novella in legal documents, brutal and amusing by turns, Briefcase superbly explores the role of language as a vessel for truth and an implement of justice.
Author
District Court and Family Court judge at Auckland by day, John Adams also has a Masters in Creative Writing from The University of Auckland and is a poet by night. He is a long-time author of legal texts – such as the Butterworths Family Law series. The first draft of Briefcase was written during his Masters year in 2009.