May 2011 Election

[xbl]

I had a wee search for "prima facie":

1 use by Ric in 2008 (then another post being smug about it not being understood.

1 use by HB in 2009 (who also did law at uni did he not (unsure)?

2 uses by Ad Lib (October and November 2010)

15 uses by Ad Lib (2011 only).

Oh, and one more use by someone who quoted a law.

[Ad Lib]

Its a very simple phrase is it? Its not commonly used, and you know its not commonly used because, as you said yourself "It's used all the time in legal discussion". Legal Discussion. This is a forum, not a pseudo legalese latin forum.

So what? I'll use whatever language I like. Prima facie does not have to restrict its usage to legal discussion. It is a useful term which is applicable to countless contexts. If you don't like it I'll repeat what I said earlier: feel free to f**k off and ignore my posts.

Regardless of your tiresome counting of angels style semantics, and regardless of the presence of Dickson, this is not a law forum. And what you are doing is confirming what I accused you of. You like to drop in terms like these because you think it dazzles and obfuscates. It might dazzle some, but this is the wrong audience for debating club style tricks. Furthermore, I do get amused when you go on these verbal binges. You're like a kid with a new toy. You find a phrase, decide you like it, appropriate it, drop it into conversation, and preen about how very clever you are.

I drop terms in because they are the words my brain instinctively uses to describe the situations and because they are appropriate to what I want to convey. I'm not going to apologise for having a wide vocabulary and using it intuitively. It's not about "preening about how clever I am" but a mere bi-product of my (factual) intelligence and knowledge.

But not all the time. Oh no, its only ever when you're out of your depth or under attack. "Defending the indefensible? Try Latin". After a while though, someone gets fed up of it, points out how absurd it is, and you drop the phrase like a hot tattie and slink back to the shadows.

No, this is bollocks. I use it in all circumstances where it is appropriate. Just because it's used against you doesn't mean I'm "out of my depth". Indeed I am not out of my depth in this situation, and every time you criticise me for using "straw man" (when you actually fucking erect one) it's because YOU are keen to latch onto something to avoid actually dealing with the points I then raise about the logical invalidity of your argument.

See Swampy's deconstruction of your pointless and persistent usage of Ad Hominem, the way you've stopped screaming "STRAW MAN!!!!" at every possible opportunity, and now, I'd hope that your ridiculous use of a dead language phrase to dazzle laymen will stop.

I've not used "straw man" and "ad hominem" because I've not seen any new straw men or ad hominems in the last few days (asides vikingTON's tiresome caricature trolling about bedwetting). Consider that a sign that your fallacious tendencies are less pronounced of late.

The layman exists to be patronised, then informed, then educated. I do not believe in catering for the lowest common denominator. They are inferior, irrelevant and it is their own duty to make themselves relevant and important and worthy of engaging in discussion.

Really? Are you sure on that one?

Reasonably confident, yes.

[Ad Lib]

I had a wee search for "prima facie":

1 use by Ric in 2008 (then another post being smug about it not being understood.

1 use by HB in 2009 (who also did law at uni did he not (unsure)?

2 uses by Ad Lib (October and November 2010)

15 uses by Ad Lib (2011 only).

Oh, and one more use by someone who quoted a law.

I'm dreadfully sorry that lemmings such as yourself aren't in such esteemed company.

[xbl]

So what? I'll use whatever language I like. Prima facie does not have to restrict its usage to legal discussion. It is a useful term which is applicable to countless contexts. If you don't like it I'll repeat what I said earlier: feel free to f**k off and ignore my posts.

I drop terms in because they are the words my brain instinctively uses to describe the situations and because they are appropriate to what I want to convey. I'm not going to apologise for having a wide vocabulary and using it intuitively. It's not about "preening about how clever I am" but a mere bi-product of my (factual) intelligence and knowledge.

No, this is bollocks. I use it in all circumstances where it is appropriate. Just because it's used against you doesn't mean I'm "out of my depth". Indeed I am not out of my depth in this situation, and every time you criticise me for using "straw man" (when you actually fucking erect one) it's because YOU are keen to latch onto something to avoid actually dealing with the points I then raise about the logical invalidity of your argument.

I've not used "straw man" and "ad hominem" because I've not seen any new straw men or ad hominems in the last few days (asides vikingTON's tiresome caricature trolling about bedwetting). Consider that a sign that your fallacious tendencies are less pronounced of late.

The layman exists to be patronised, then informed, then educated. I do not believe in catering for the lowest common denominator. They are inferior, irrelevant and it is their own duty to make themselves relevant and important and worthy of engaging in discussion.

Reasonably confident, yes.

So you prove my point yet again. You posture, you try to dazzle, and as has been clearly shown, you use terms that the layman wouldn't be expected to know. As VikingTon said, and you also said, language is about conveying information. I try to make my posts accessible to all, so that most can understand. That is not the same as catering for the lowest common denominator, but it is about communicating information effectively with your audience. Something you acknowledge you do not do, and do not want to do. Oh, and furthermore, when exactly did you learn this phrase? I won't ignore your posts though, but I will attack them, especially when you use a cold dead language to inexplicably defend the cold dead union.

[Reynard]

It is neater because it sounds better and uses fewer words (and in the case of the latter two alternatives, fewer syllables). The point of language is to convey information. I don't care who understands and who doesn't understand what I say. I am not directing what I say at a wide audience. If the language I use restricts the readership to those capable of understanding it, so be it.

I really couldn't care less who sets corporation tax as long as it's low to non-existent. Thankfully the Coalition have been aiming to cut it consistently.

Milton Friedman made a very compelling case about taxes against business which the Coalition would do well to use. Taxes on business isn't tax on business at all; it's tax on individuals.

Take payroll taxes like NI for example: they are a tax on employment, therefore are factored into the total cost an employer assumes when employing someone. Thus it is really a cut out of the pay-packet of the employee. That means that, for example, in the UK the lowest income tax band is 20%(Base Rate)+11%(Employee NIC)+12.8%(Employer NIC) = 43.8%. That's outrageous.

Of course it's outrageous. But then the government needs to take money from us to pay for it's fighting holidays in various shitholes of the world. And it needs to take money from us to line their own pockets and to pay for all the people it employs in the public sector.

My signature isn't really that far from the truth. We are returning to serfdom.

[Reynard]

So you prove my point yet again. You posture, you try to dazzle, and as has been clearly shown, you use terms that the layman wouldn't be expected to know. As VikingTon said, and you also said, language is about conveying information. I try to make my posts accessible to all, so that most can understand. That is not the same as catering for the lowest common denominator, but it is about communicating information effectively with your audience. Something you acknowledge you do not do, and do not want to do. Oh, and furthermore, when exactly did you learn this phrase? I won't ignore your posts though, but I will attack them, especially when you use a cold dead language to inexplicably defend the cold dead union.

c**t

[xbl]

Of course it's outrageous. But then the government needs to take money from us to pay for it's fighting holidays in various shitholes of the world. And it needs to take money from us to line their own pockets and to pay for all the people it employs in the public sector.

My signature isn't really that far from the truth. We are returning to serfdom.

Time to get away from that bloated bureaucracy that is the British Union then! The Tories have shown how much they depend on North Sea Oil for their Great British Income, imagine if we didn't have to share that, and if the tax system could be simplified due to having a magnitude less people. Small is better, small means less red tape, small means more independence, small means more control, and small means a larger slice of the cake. The business case is clear. Independence, or serfdom.

[Ad Lib]

So you prove my point yet again. You posture, you try to dazzle, and as has been clearly shown, you use terms that the layman wouldn't be expected to know. As VikingTon said, and you also said, language is about conveying information. I try to make my posts accessible to all, so that most can understand. That is not the same as catering for the lowest common denominator, but it is about communicating information effectively with your audience. Something you acknowledge you do not do, and do not want to do. Oh, and furthermore, when exactly did you learn this phrase? I won't ignore your posts though, but I will attack them, especially when you use a cold dead language to inexplicably defend the cold dead union.

I posture and dazzle because that is what I naturally do. It, in part, defines who I am. I use terms that the layman doesn't know. Woop-de-fucking-doo. Language is about communication. It is not about making everything you wish to convey so simplistic that the lowest common denominator can understand it.

I use language to bring about a threshold for natural selection in debate. If people cannot understand the (frankly quite basic but extensive) vocabulary I use, or if they are unwilling to look up a word or phrase on the rare occasion they don't, their opinion in the discussion is not one I'm interested in. I communicate information perfectly adequately with the audience at which I intend to convey information.

You are clearly an intelligent man. You should be capable of understanding the vast majority of what I say. Where you don't, you are on a fucking computer. Use a dictionary. If you don't, it's wilful ignorance and not becoming of your potential.

I think I first became aware of the phrase prima facie in 2008. It came up in a history book I was reading for my Advanced Higher dissertation. I didn't understand it from first principles, but I could infer its meaning from context and I then looked it up afterwards to be sure as to its specific meaning. It is a phrase that has then been used extensively in the first two years of my law course and even in non-law discussions with other acquaintances both I and they use it quite a lot.

The language is not cold and dead. It is one of the key arteries delivering the life-blood into the modern Western language capillaries.

I wasn't "defending the Union" rather contesting your sweeping generalisations about other political parties than the one you support.

[Ad Lib]

Time to get away from that bloated bureaucracy that is the British Union then! The Tories have shown how much they depend on North Sea Oil for their Great British Income, imagine if we didn't have to share that, and if the tax system could be simplified due to having a magnitude less people. Small is better, small means less red tape, small means more independence, small means more control, and small means a larger slice of the cake. The business case is clear. Independence, or serfdom.

I don't care if I am serf to Stalin in Westminster or Rakosi in Holyrood. I'd rather just not be a serf.

[vikingTON]

The point of language is to convey information. I don't care who understands and who doesn't understand what I say.

con·vey/kənˈvā/Verb

1. Transport or carry to a place.

2. Make (an idea, impression, or feeling) known or understandable to someone

Now if you don't mind the adults would like to talk minus your dead language, posturing and stampy breakdowns cluttering the thread and leaving a thin deposit of fail over everything.

[vikingTON]

c**t

^^^ groomer

[Scary Bear]

Is the pensioner party standing or are they all dead now?

http://www.sscup.org/2011-scottish-election-candidates/

They're not brown bread! Halleluah!

[Scary Bear]

I really hope some more of the fringe parties get in again. Makes it all more interesting.

[Ad Lib]

con·vey/kənˈvā/Verb

1. Transport or carry to a place.

2. Make (an idea, impression, or feeling) known or understandable to someone

Now if you don't mind the adults would like to talk minus your dead language, posturing and stampy breakdowns cluttering the thread and leaving a thin deposit of fail over everything.

Let's take the 2nd definition and emphasise the or.

Information may be conveyed in that it is known but not necessarily understood.

Now slop out your bucket of fail and crawl back under your rock.

[Reynard]

Is the pensioner party standing or are they all dead now?

http://www.sscup.org...ion-candidates/

They're not brown bread! Halleluah!

They probably can't remember.

If you are a fan of by elections then give them your votes. Should be plenty of them when the old dears shuffle off this mortal coil.

[vikingTON]

Let's take the 2nd definition and emphasise the or.

No, let's stop clutching at straws Stampy and sweep up your fail. Then do one.

[Ad Lib]

No, let's stop clutching at straws Stampy and sweep up your fail. Then do one.

vikingTON realises there was, in fact, no fail

[xbl]

vikingTON realises there was, in fact, no fail

I think VikingTon got the fail spot on. Its been interesting seeing you arguing both my side and your side of the argument, often in the same post.

[vikingTON]

Glasgow based Blogger holding Scottish and British politicians to account, promoting unashamedly an agenda of a minimalist state, empowerment of the individual, promotion of choice, robust and fair rule of law, and most of all, the protection of personal liberty from wrongful intrusion.

In what way do you intend to promote your posturing agenda if you have no interest in whether your posturing shite is understood or not? By an (admittedly pathetic) audience. On a blog?

:facepalm:

*This is when you exit the big boys thread stage left*

[Ad Lib]

I think VikingTon got the fail spot on. Its been interesting seeing you arguing both my side and your side of the argument, often in the same post.

To convey information is not to require it to be understandable. If people cannot understand what I have to say, when it is perfectly easy to understand for anyone with an iota of intelligence, it's not my fault. It's their problem and they can either solve it or go f**k themselves.

I have thus only argued my own position.

In what way do you intend to promote your posturing agenda if you have no interest in whether your posturing shite is understood or not? By a (admittedly pathetic) audience. On a blog?

*This is when you exit the big boys thread stage left*

The blog has been mothballed. In promoting those aims I merely intend to live by example. Next question?