Why the flippin' heck not? Is there a character length minimum? Or maybe a syllable count?
The "Royals" Thread
Re: The "Royals" Thread
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
Re: The "Royals" Thread
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
Thanks
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: The "Royals" Thread
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.
Re: The "Royals" Thread
It's an amazing difference from the bumf that I have to complete apparently in order to prevent money laundering.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".
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
Re: The "Royals" Thread
And Charles. With more detail of how this works than we've had before: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.
"Revealed: how Prince Charles pressured ministers to change law to benefit his estate":
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... en-consent
Jonathan
Re: The "Royals" Thread
Twenty years' imprisonment and a fine of $750k.Jdsk wrote: ↑2 Apr 2022, 9:55amNext up on the criminal front: sentencing due on 22 June 2022. And the perjury charges will be dropped if this proceeds according to plan.thirdcrank wrote: ↑2 Apr 2022, 9:30amFWIWJdsk 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
Ghislaine Maxwell bid for retrial denied
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60962777A US judge has upheld Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking conviction, denying her bid for a new trial.
Jonathan
Re: The "Royals" Thread
Re: The "Royals" Thread
But should we apply the cited penalty?
: - )
Jonathan
Re: The "Royals" Thread
I don't think you're the one, who should apologisethirdcrank 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.
Re: The "Royals" Thread
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:
I'm not going to insist on a Yes/No answer - but some answer would be nice .......,,,,,,,,,,,,,Jdsk wrote: ↑27 Jun 2022, 7:24pm
Why put a single comma inside a short phrase?
Re: The "Royals" Thread
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
John Maynard Keynes
Re: The "Royals" Thread
"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."Jdsk wrote: ↑28 Jun 2022, 10:13amIt's an amazing difference from the bumf that I have to complete apparently in order to prevent money laundering.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".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -charities
Jonathan