Soon I’ll publish the rules of a board game that I invented in my youth (hence the self-reporting above, which might even have been a false alarm).
Please compare:
> The black player takes all the North, Up and East movement cards.
> Black takes all the North, Up and East movement cards.
Does the former wording offend modern sensibilities? Is the latter’s chromanym acceptable? Preference?
It is well known that I am a recidivist of the first water on this thread. It is therefore with a heavy heart that I wish to draw the following to the standards committee.
djewesbury wrote:5-48.
The traditional way of expressing cricket scores in England is for the runs to come first and the wickets to come second, ie 48-5. I am aware that this is not the case in the antipodes, it is similar to the division that exists between Europe and America as to which order to put the day/month/year (obvious when put like that, but it pays to be polite to powerful allies, even if they are wrong).
So I hope that a simple reprimand and apology will be enough to bring one of our most traditional and vociferous defenders of the right way of doing things to heel. It gives me no pleasure at all to do this Daniel, oh no.
You threepenny keyboard worrier. I reserve the right to post the cricket score in any format that is widely used anywhere in the universe. And I will not be held to account by a man who refuses to groom and water his apostrophes. I have seen your punctuation marks running wild on the moors, and it isn't a pretty sight.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
It is perfectly standard in two of the biggest cricketing nations in the world, the ones hosting the competition in fact, to refer to the score the other way around. I am sick of this little Englander mentality from Owen, his neo-Imperialism is just what the game doesn't need these days. And you should know better Derek. Encouraging these Colonel Blimps.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
I have a proposal, to discourage further wasting of the court's time. Could costs be awarded against the plaintiff in cases where the court's ruling is in favour of the defendant? Costs should be reasonably high, viz. a bottle of unfiltered LBV or pre-2000 Crusted to be consumed at a future tasting. No ruling for costs to be made against convicted defendants.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
djewesbury wrote:I have a proposal, to discourage further wasting of the court's time. Could costs be awarded against the plaintiff in cases where the court's ruling is in favour of the defendant? Costs should be reasonably high, viz. a bottle of unfiltered LBV or pre-2000 Crusted to be consumed at a future tasting. No ruling for costs to be made against convicted defendants.
If this were a poll I would vote no as this would act as a deterrent to ridiculous and/or dubious allegations that eventually lead to entertaining humiliation of the plaintiff. Should we have a poll?
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
djewesbury wrote:I have a proposal, to discourage further wasting of the court's time. Could costs be awarded against the plaintiff in cases where the court's ruling is in favour of the defendant? Costs should be reasonably high, viz. a bottle of unfiltered LBV or pre-2000 Crusted to be consumed at a future tasting. No ruling for costs to be made against convicted defendants.
That risks causing an undesired change in the behaviour of accusers. Rather than accusing, plainly and honestly, notices will come with wiffle about how “this might be acceptable, but it seemed to be a borderline case of possible interest to readers”.
Too much of the court's time is currently being taken up with vexatious or malicious accusations. These typically are motivated by revenge or by a desire to deflect from immediately prior accusations. Too often, accusations are unsubstantiated with any evidence of general or accepted usage. I do not wish to stifle the court and to silence legitimate complaint and debate. I think however that we need some sort of corrective to the worst excesses of the persistent accusers.
Daniel J.
Husband of a relentless former Soviet Chess Master.
delete.. delete.. *sigh*.. delete...
djewesbury wrote:Too much of the court's time is currently being taken up with vexatious or malicious accusations. These typically are motivated by revenge or by a desire to deflect from immediately prior accusations. Too often, accusations are unsubstantiated with any evidence of general or accepted usage. I do not wish to stifle the court and to silence legitimate complaint and debate. I think however that we need some sort of corrective to the worst excesses of the persistent accusers.
djewesbury wrote:I have a proposal, to discourage further wasting of the court's time.
DRT wrote:I would vote no as this would act as a deterrent to ridiculous and/or dubious allegations that eventually lead to entertaining humiliation of the plaintiff.
jdaw1 wrote:That risks causing an undesired change in the behaviour of accusers.
djewesbury wrote:Too much of the court's time is currently being taken up with vexatious or malicious accusations. These typically are motivated by revenge or by a desire to deflect from immediately prior accusations. Too often, accusations are unsubstantiated with any evidence of general or accepted usage. I do not wish to stifle the court and to silence legitimate complaint and debate. I think however that we need some sort of corrective to the worst excesses of the persistent accusers.
jdaw1 wrote:Ignore them. Be bigger than that.
djewesbury wrote:This is a sham of a court. A succession of monkey trials.
...and apparently I'm the bad loser
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
