The "Royals" Thread

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by mattheus »

Jdsk wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 7:24pm ...
Yes, that's the meaning, but that's not the syntax of the canonical quote. Why put a single comma inside a short phrase?

Jonathan
Why the flippin' heck not? Is there a character length minimum? Or maybe a syllable count?
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

mattheus wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 8:40am
Jdsk wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 7:24pm Yes, that's the meaning, but that's not the syntax of the canonical quote. Why put a single comma inside a short phrase?
Is there a character length minimum? Or maybe a syllable count?
It's a short phrase and there's no separation of meaning between the he in Honi soit and the who in qui. So there's no reason for a separating punctuation mark. As there wasn't in either of your short phrases above.

And the comma isn't there in the standard heraldic form.

Jonathan
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by mattheus »

So this challenge is irrelevant:
Jdsk wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 7:24pm Why put a single comma inside a short phrase?

Jonathan
?
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Perhaps you could say what you think are the appropriate uses of the comma. And then we could look at Honi soit qui mal y pense and discuss which of those apply.

Thanks

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

My sincere apologies to anybody concerned about mysterious fortunes in cash changing hands at high levels in our society and who may feel that my weak attempts at humour have detracted from the bigger issues.
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Psamathe wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 11:02am
francovendee wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 8:21am That anyone could imagine that huge amounts of money in banknotes wasn't somehow 'dodgy' beats me.
Who would deal this way unless you want to disguise the origin of the money.
...
What could be dodgy about millions in notes in bags from overseas sources ...? Beggars belief. And all Royals can do is "No laws were broken".
It's an amazing difference from the bumf that I have to complete apparently in order to prevent money laundering.

And, as always, the Orwell test helps in thinking rationally about it. In this case the version where you substitute other actors into the rôles. You can use people you like or admire or people that you dislike or condemn.

But to make the point I'll open the bidding with the same donor but the recipient being the actual recipient's mother.

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Jdsk wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 4:10pm "A Scottish government memo obtained by the Guardian reveals that “it is almost certain” draft laws have been secretly changed to secure the Queen’s approval."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... nment-memo

Usual principle: if it isn't public it's difficult to be democratic.
And Charles. With more detail of how this works than we've had before:

"Revealed: how Prince Charles pressured ministers to change law to benefit his estate":
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... en-consent

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Jdsk wrote: 2 Apr 2022, 9:55am
thirdcrank wrote: 2 Apr 2022, 9:30am
Jdsk wrote: 6 Jan 2022, 11:56am USA v Maxwell:
The Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule for the Defense to move for a new trial in light of the issues raised in the parties’ letters...
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .571.0.pdf

"Court Inquiry Requested After Ghislaine Maxwell Juror Goes Public as Survivor of Sexual Abuse":
https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/ghi ... ostpopular
FWIW

Ghislaine Maxwell bid for retrial denied
A US judge has upheld Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking conviction, denying her bid for a new trial.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60962777
Next up on the criminal front: sentencing due on 22 June 2022. And the perjury charges will be dropped if this proceeds according to plan.
Twenty years' imprisonment and a fine of $750k.

Jonathan
ossie
Posts: 1793
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 7:52pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by ossie »

Jdsk wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 9:52am Perhaps you could say what you think are the appropriate uses of the comma. And then we could look at Honi soit qui mal y pense and discuss which of those apply.

Thanks

Jonathan
You are John Cleese and I claim my £5 :wink:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

ossie wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 9:24pm
Jdsk wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 9:52am Perhaps you could say what you think are the appropriate uses of the comma. And then we could look at Honi soit qui mal y pense and discuss which of those apply.
You are John Cleese and I claim my £5
But should we apply the cited penalty?

: - )

Jonathan
sjs
Posts: 1306
Joined: 24 Jan 2010, 10:08pm
Location: Hitchin

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by sjs »

thirdcrank wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 10:04am My sincere apologies to anybody concerned about mysterious fortunes in cash changing hands at high levels in our society and who may feel that my weak attempts at humour have detracted from the bigger issues.
I don't think you're the one, who should apologise
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by mattheus »

Jdsk wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 9:52am Perhaps you could say what you think are the appropriate uses of the comma.
That might be quite a long side-discussion ....

For now, let's cover one point at a time. Can you confirm that this challenge was irrelevant:
Jdsk wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 7:24pm
Why put a single comma inside a short phrase?
I'm not going to insist on a Yes/No answer - but some answer would be nice .......,,,,,,,,,,,,,
User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 5430
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Cugel »

Angel pin.gif
103 of the little ones or 2 really big ones.

Cugel, more interested in what Beelzebub is up to.
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by mattheus »

Cugel wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 11:22am Angel pin.gif

103 of the little ones or 2 really big ones.

Cugel, more interested in what Beelzebub is up to.
Fascinating insight.
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Jdsk wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 10:13am
Psamathe wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 11:02am
francovendee wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 8:21am That anyone could imagine that huge amounts of money in banknotes wasn't somehow 'dodgy' beats me.
Who would deal this way unless you want to disguise the origin of the money.
...
What could be dodgy about millions in notes in bags from overseas sources ...? Beggars belief. And all Royals can do is "No laws were broken".
It's an amazing difference from the bumf that I have to complete apparently in order to prevent money laundering.
"The Prince of Wales will no longer accept large cash donations for his charities, a senior royal source has said, after Charles faced criticism over claims he received €3m from a billionaire Qatari sheikh reportedly stuffed in a small suitcase and Fortnum & Mason carrier bag."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -charities

Jonathan
Post Reply