Wanna know if it is a goer
-
I'm not sure that is appropriate for this site. If we say yes then what will be the next suggestion? Cooking, origami, dog handling ...
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
-
Is it worth my while trying a latin primer amongst you lot? I am willing to run a course if people are willing to learn. I can do it in the articles if there are enough people wanting it. waddya fink?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
I think I just found someone more bored than I am. :D Although in my defense, I wanted to read the World of Watches series, so learning Russian was a good idea. The whiskey had nothing to do with it. Latin is fun though, you get to read Naturalis Historia in the original Latin. Useless really, but cool at nerd parties. Pig Latin isn't Latin though, just gibberish that makes a little bit of sense. Like English.
-
o.0 A bunch of nerds, most of them English, interested in dog handling? I really can't see that working. Ever since the Queen banned fox hunting there's really no reason to get a dog.
chrissb wrote:
A bunch of nerds, most of them English, interested in dog handling?
Lots of nerds like that in England.
chrissb wrote:
Ever since the Queen banned fox hunting
Er, when exactly did the Queen have the power to do that?
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
-
chrissb wrote:
A bunch of nerds, most of them English, interested in dog handling?
Lots of nerds like that in England.
chrissb wrote:
Ever since the Queen banned fox hunting
Er, when exactly did the Queen have the power to do that?
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
-
I am in. I always want to learn something new. Latin would be cool :cool:.
HimanshuJoshi wrote:
I always want to learn something new
Or, in the case of Latin, you always want to learn something old.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
-
First part was sarcasm, second part was a mistake on my part. It was passed by the House of Commons in '05. Although the Queen technically has the power to do whatever she wants. The whole "Queen" thing.
chrissb wrote:
Although the Queen technically has the power to do whatever she wants.
No she doesn't. She is a constitutional monarch and can only endorse decisions made by her government (of whatever persuasion). She has no power to make any decisions on her own that affect the country.
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
-
chrissb wrote:
Although the Queen technically has the power to do whatever she wants.
No she doesn't. She is a constitutional monarch and can only endorse decisions made by her government (of whatever persuasion). She has no power to make any decisions on her own that affect the country.
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
She has no power to make any decisions on her own that affect the country.
Except, of course the power to dissolve parliament of course, forcing an early election. and various other powers covered as "The Royal Perogative". Covered quite well in Wikipedia. That's my main reason for wanting to abolish the monarchy - even though none of these rights have been exercised in living memory, it seems wrong that a single, unelected individual who occupies her position through right of birth alone (and historically force of arms) should wield such rights.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
She has no power to make any decisions on her own that affect the country.
Except, of course the power to dissolve parliament of course, forcing an early election. and various other powers covered as "The Royal Perogative". Covered quite well in Wikipedia. That's my main reason for wanting to abolish the monarchy - even though none of these rights have been exercised in living memory, it seems wrong that a single, unelected individual who occupies her position through right of birth alone (and historically force of arms) should wield such rights.
Well she can do that in Aus. No law is legal unless it's signed by the Queen, or the Attorney General who is a representative of the Queen. Also the dissolving parliament thing. Figured if she could do that then she should be able to pass a law of her own. Monarchy is a good system, if it's wielded correctly. But in this case it's just a nuisance. A figurehead who remains in charge of the most powerful rights is a bad thing. imo of course
-
Is it worth my while trying a latin primer amongst you lot? I am willing to run a course if people are willing to learn. I can do it in the articles if there are enough people wanting it. waddya fink?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
I have an O Level in Latin from 1975 (Grade E though!) and the thought of revising Mensa, mensa, mensam, mensamus, mensatis, mensant again fills me with horror! Romanes eunt domus!
==================================== Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise! ====================================
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
She has no power to make any decisions on her own that affect the country.
Except, of course the power to dissolve parliament of course, forcing an early election. and various other powers covered as "The Royal Perogative". Covered quite well in Wikipedia. That's my main reason for wanting to abolish the monarchy - even though none of these rights have been exercised in living memory, it seems wrong that a single, unelected individual who occupies her position through right of birth alone (and historically force of arms) should wield such rights.
Rob Grainger wrote:
Except, of course the power to dissolve parliament of course, forcing an early election. and various other powers covered as "The Royal Perogative". Covered quite well in Wikipedia.
In reality she can do none of these things on her own initiative. Neither the government nor the country at large would accept it. That is why having a constitutional monarch without real power is so much better than having an elected president, who could waste time and money (ab)using their power trying to oppose the government. Would you really want someone like Blair or Brown as head of state?
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
-
HimanshuJoshi wrote:
I always want to learn something new
Or, in the case of Latin, you always want to learn something old.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
It might be old, but it is new for me.