|
|
|
|
I have wondered ever since I first saw your messages to this forum whether or not you are who you say you are - or whether you might be having a joke at our expense? I'm not accusing, just confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oliver,
If you mean Jason, I know him a little and I'm sure he is who he says he is. I think the possible reason for the incongruity, Jay, is that you tend to post rather more casually than most other people.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK David, I take it back. I hope I haven't caused offence.
Spunky
[Updated on: Tue, 14 November 2006 10:16] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
I think you've reminded us simply that online we can be anyone we choose. 
I don't think Jay will mind at all, though he may be a bit perplexed ::
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I am
And if I may ask to y you have come to that conclution
But theres no hard feeling.
So say what you want
(You know I'm wasting all my time)
You've gotta mean it when you say what you want
(You're only safe when you're alone)
And everybody's on your mind
Saying anything to get you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I am two differnt people an online more open but in life I closed and distance.
So say what you want
(You know I'm wasting all my time)
You've gotta mean it when you say what you want
(You're only safe when you're alone)
And everybody's on your mind
Saying anything to get you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok now to why I asked for your imput.
The paper has been turend in the topic was Rebellion and there value.
It was a free write, and grammer was not an big concer cause it was timed.
the paper is being grade on idea and topic and if I stayed true to the main thise. the reason I posted casue alot of it was about me.
And I love to be in the Spot light! LOL
Not really, but it got almost every one on one topic.
side note to timmy
how did the poll that u did for the MB turn out.
[Updated on: Fri, 20 October 2006 18:45]
So say what you want
(You know I'm wasting all my time)
You've gotta mean it when you say what you want
(You're only safe when you're alone)
And everybody's on your mind
Saying anything to get you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well when learning in first grade that is how it is done here.....
But, once in the college forum one is expected to be past all that....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My mistake. As you say, no hard feelings.
Oliver
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. Nice to meet you by the way.
So say what you want
(You know I'm wasting all my time)
You've gotta mean it when you say what you want
(You're only safe when you're alone)
And everybody's on your mind
Saying anything to get you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Applying a very basic rule of English grammar, the sentence in Aussie's quote is entirely unambiguous. Avoiding too much technical language, insertion of the second comma puts the bit in between the commas 'in parentheses'. Brackets or dashes can be used in the same way. Words in parentheses are not grammatically essential to the longer sentence. That is certainly the case in Aussie's example; the sentence remains grammatical if the commas and the words between them are removed. The original sentence is therefore interpreted as if the words in parentheses give additional information, but they do not - and can not - change the original meaning. So the contract runs for five years and can be terminated at one year's notice given by either party (the primary meaning) and may be renewed for subsequent periods of five years by mutual agreement (the additional information).
It logically follows that the contract draughtsman used by Rogers' lawyers was grossly incompetent. As he was no doubt an employee of the legal firm, and that firm was presumably advising and representing Rogers, I would have thought that the firm was clearly negligent and could (and certainly should) be sued for recovery of the consequent loss. Or is Canadian law unduly lawyer friendly?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... the British are just as bad. But a visit to any messageboard popular with those between, say, 15 and 25 will rapidly illustrate the abysmal standards of grammar, spelling and punctuation throughout much of the English speaking world. The fault does not lie with students nor, in the main, does it lie with teachers; it lies with the educational theorists who tinker with the syllabus and change priorities without adequate research.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did not say that it is not possible to work out the grammatically correct meaning: I did it myself after reading the sentence a couple of times. (I am also familiar with the rules of English grammar.)
I said,
>As it is, the sentence can be read either way and it's almost impossible to say which is the right one.
By this I mean, firstly, that it can be read either way (obviously it can -- whether there is technically no ambiguity or not, it has been!). Secondly, it's almost impossible to tell what the original intention of the writer was -- did he mean what it actually says, or did he mean something else? Legally we have to assume that he meant what it technically says, but that doesn't mean he actually meant that, because lawyers make mistakes too.
I also said,
>But in this case it's not really the punctuation that's at fault: the fault is that of the idiots who signed without paying attention to what it meant.
It is up to those who sign a contract to make sure they understand it. I admit I was a bit ambiguous myself when I said, "it's not really the punctuation that's at fault": there was a technical error there, but that's why I said "it's not really" rather than just "it's not". What I meant was that it's a human error on a much larger scale; it should have been picked up by someone somewhere along the line in proof-reading and explanation well before it became a legal contract. That it did not is, as you say, probably grounds for a lawsuit.
I still think that, in this case, the concept should have been clarified in further sentences to ensure that this situation could not have occurred.
David
[Updated on: Sat, 21 October 2006 02:27] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie said,
>The fault does not lie with students nor, in the main, does it lie with teachers; it lies with the educational theorists who tinker with the syllabus and change priorities without adequate research.
Is that true?
I am of the opinion that if someone wants to be able to read and write properly the only real way is for him to teach himself. This is achieved in the main through reading good books, looking words up, paying attention to the construction of sentences, memorising spellings, observing punctuation and so on. A good understanding of spelling, grammar and punctuation cannot be learnt by rote: a person has to want to achieve it. This is the same now as it always has been.
I would be more inclined to suggest that in recent years people have been distracted from books by other media such as video games, television and the Internet. The first two are entirely devoid of written literature. The Internet has potential, but most young people don't use it for learning good style: they use it for communicating with each other. Instead of learning from professional and accomplished writers, they "learn" from people who are just as bad as they are.
I suppose I am lucky that I never used a computer until I was 11, and the Internet as we know it today did not really exist until I was 15 or 16. I certainly read a lot less now than I used to, and that depresses me a bit.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Objection overruled!
The sentence is contained in a legal document, not a tabloid newspaper. It is therefore to be construed grammatically; no other course is possible. And, grammatically, it has only one possible meaning.
The question of what the draughtsman meant is irrelevant. In fact, the law is softening a little in this area, in that the UK Courts may now admit extracts from Hansard or other relevant papers to clarify an ambiguity in statute law - but this does not extend to private contracts and in any event it can only apply when the disputed phrase is grammatically ambiguous. In this case, it isn't!
Finally - and in the light of the above - any competent legal draughtsman would avoid further clarification. In legal terms, the meaning is (or, at least, is perceived to be) unambiguous. Additional words simply offer additional opportunity for error and ambiguity - a conclusion that has been demonstrated in the Courts on innumerable occasions.
The error was purely grammatical; deletion of the second comma would have achieved the intended result. It was therefore negligent, and grossly so. But companies employ professional advisors and are entitled to rely upon their competence - so the fault lies firmly with the lawyers rather than the actual signatories.
Next case!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The objection was largely that I felt you were disagreeing with a position that I had not taken. There's very little in your latest post with which I would disagree. I do not pretend that, legally and grammatically speaking, there is not only one possible reading; nor that this is not the fault of the lawyers.
I concede that additional complexity to a contract does not usually help matters, but, in more general terms, rephrasing a sentence so that its meaning does not hang on a comma is probably the way to go. For one thing, it becomes potentially very ambiguous when read aloud. (Yes, you don't need to point out to me that these contracts are designed to be read and not heard.)
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I have to compensate for agreeing with all and sundry last night!
I grew up in a working-class family with few books in the house. I should explain that my dad (who was born in 1904) suffered severe ill-heath as a child and received almost no schooling. He taught himself to read and write; he wrote a beautiful, almost copperplate longhand, but reading never came easily. He could enjoy Western novels - his favourite author was Zane Grey - and he could read and fully understand newspaper articles - but heavy non-fiction was always a chore rather than a pleasure. Nevertheless, he was the respected resident political commentator in our local pub!
At primary school age (5-11), I was given some books (the usual children's classics) at birthdays and Christmas, and I read and enjoyed them, but I didn't have the resources to buy extra books. Most of my reading experience was gleaned from comics - UK posters of a certain age may remember 'Radio Fun', 'Film Fun', 'Rover', 'Wizard', 'Hotspur', 'Adventure' and 'Classics Illustrated'. The primary school taught the basics of grammar, spelling and pronunciation, but the real learning came at grammar school. English Language was a compulsory O-Level, and that five-year course taught me most of what I know and fired my lifelong fascination for the subject. A part-time job (then legal from 13) gave me the money to buy more books - the new-fangled paperbacks were just making their mark in the early 1960s - and soon my room was filled to overflowing, though still primarily with fiction. But throughout the whole period, although reading no doubt enhanced my vocabulary, the skill I acquired was taught, and taught well. In primary school we played games with synonyms and with words with identical sounds. At Grammar School, the teaching included such useful reinforcing lessons as the difference between pique (arouse, especially in the case of interest or curiosity), peak (sharp summit) and peek (sneak a surreptitious look), and the difference between trooper (soldier) and trouper (stage performer), so that I have never forgotten that phrases such as 'he kept going like the trouper he was' have nothing to do with soldiering but everything to do with the performers' maxim 'The show must go on'. You don't need to penetrate far into the Nifty Archives to discover that such distinctions are no longer understood.
I accept what you say about the distractions afforded by television, video games and the internet - though I had distractions of my own when I was at school (get your mind out of the gutter, Aussie, even if you MIGHT be right!). But, in essence, my facility with English is due to the quality of the teaching I received. I am convinced that the one-size-fits-all concept of comprehensive schools was a major factor in the decline not only of skill and facility in the language, but also in the lack of interest in this truly fascinating subject.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but I've spent a large chunk of my life arguing the meaning of words before learned tribunals. There's even a Statutory Instrument out there that was overturned because I demonstrated that it contained an error which rendered it ineffective - and I got to write much of the replacement, which hasn't yet been challenged!
I promise you that sub-clauses, inserted with the intention that they should clarify the main clause, provide a fertile pasture for those seeking to evade the intention of the law.
I'm therefore obliged to take the view that the disputed clause in the contract, being grammatically unambiguous, is an excellent example of good draughtsmanship - if only the draughtsman had been sufficiently competent to omit the second comma. It didn't mean that the sentence became ambiguous, but it changed its unambiguous meaning completely!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
Geeeez!! sorry guys that I started this bit about commas. I wouldn't know where to put one anyway.
Jay, I liked your piece and was surprised how well you brought out your ideas. If it had have been my project I would have still been staring at a blank page by the time you had finished.
But what kind of an idiot are you to have started this thread in the first place, LOL. Yeah I can see the smug look on your face
Aussie
(slinking off quietly to buy a pair of gumboots)
Please fellas, no jokes about being gross (this was my 144th post)
[Updated on: Sat, 21 October 2006 23:13] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
Have a look on the home page. Opening it up wider has not changed the results dramatically
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: Hey what do you all think of this paper be honest 
