I'm oppressed by thicker-than-mince evos moaning that the hymns "aren't joyful or uplifting": FFS its LENT, a penitential season, take your tambourine into a field and beat yourself senseless with it if you really can't get it.
This thread is some kind of fucking weird Hell-Heaven-Epiphanies-Circus mutation dreamt up in the laboratory of my nightmares.
Also, my web browser claims that 'dreamt' is a misspelling. If there's one thing I'm oppressed by, it's spell checkers that insist I ought to be American.
Behold my oppression, as my lovely thread is criticized! (It’s one of the very very few that didn’t sink instantly under the weight of its own pedantry.)
I confess that I've never seen 'worshiper' ever. It struck me now as so odd that I'm sure that I would have remembered. Learn something new everyday...
Yep. I also used dreamt, spelt, spilt, and so on. And I write "judgement" and "worshipper" instead of the ugly "judgment" and "worshiper." Sue me.
I don't know how many times in my life that I've written it, but it has always been "judgment". It may at first look wrong, but it's how it's done here. And for me, there are times when I'd use "spelt" for more than than the grain, and others I'd use "spelled".
Yep. I also used dreamt, spelt, spilt, and so on. And I write "judgement" and "worshipper" instead of the ugly "judgment" and "worshiper." Sue me.
I don't know how many times in my life that I've written it, but it has always been "judgment". It may at first look wrong, but it's how it's done here.
You might want to check the Macquarie Dictionary sometime... and watch how that changed over the editions.
I feel oppressed by the need to give you further information, but...
One edition (the 3rd?) recorded "judgment" as the main form and "judgement" as a variant.
The next edition recorded them as equal options.
The next edition recorded "judgement" as the main form and "judgment" as a variant.
So it's switched, according to the nearest thing we have to a record of Australian usage. The same with "acknowledgement" and "lodgement" and so forth. The more typical practice now is to include the 'e'.
At work we accordingly changed our spellings, as our general policy is to follow the Macquarie. But all hell broke loose when we tried that with court rules, which we draft. All the judges insisted on "judgment". Forget whether we had the policy right, what they reacted to most was that we'd changed the spelling of one of their most important words. Macquarie Dictionary be damned.
So when you say "it's how it's done here", you may well only be referring to court rooms and not the country as a whole.
In the UK (at least from my anecdotal conversations, observations and experiences), the norm for everyday usage is 'judgement' and the norm in the courtroom is 'judgment.'
At what point did this rant about @lilbuddha 's need to fight all the oppressions™ nobody else can possibly fully comprehend transform into a Circus thread?
Makes me almost miss TomB, the squamous and rugose bastard.
Well, where does that leave your post above, heavily reliant upon what you are very close to saying is a non-authoritative source?
Which post?
Do I really have to hold your hand and carefully explain to you that a record of Australian usage is a counter to your claim about how it's done "here"?
Or do I first have to explain to you in more detail that a great majority of people don't understand how dictionaries work and think they are rulebooks when they're not?
Or perhaps you can't grasp the difference between the general non-authoritativeness of a dictionary and the fact that my workplace has a defined policy to follow what the Macquarie records?
I'm feeling oppressed by the ambiguity and not knowing exactly which withering attack to launch in your direction. The nuance in your obtuseness is upsetting.
I'm oppressed by your failure to recognise the deep meaning of the comment by Sir Laurence.
It wasn't a comment, it was a question. And the answer in a general context is no. If he was asking about statutory interpretation, then it's the policy of our drafting office to follow the Macquarie. I can't speak for other drafting offices.
I'm oppressed by your failure to recognise the deep meaning of the comment by Sir Laurence.
It wasn't a comment, it was a question. And the answer in a general context is no. If he was asking about statutory interpretation, then it's the policy of our drafting office to follow the Macquarie. I can't speak for other drafting offices.
NEXT!
It may look like a question, but it was really a demand - cite me something on which I can rely.
Comments
Hmmm... seeing as the College of Bishops has seen fit to translate your Bishop to my Diocese, I guess +Kevin technically is an episcopus vagans...
Damn weegies, coming here, stealing our episcopus.
Edit: I'm now wondering whether Oban to Glasgow counts as moving diagonally.
I think this is the thread you are looking for:
https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/1560/mornington-crescent-return-ticket#latest
West of Scotland rules suggest the Bishop is most like in Haugh...
And some are just vagrant.
Indeed. Everyone knows it's uteruses that wander.
Only if you have a very long tongue, I'd have thought.
Also, my web browser claims that 'dreamt' is a misspelling. If there's one thing I'm oppressed by, it's spell checkers that insist I ought to be American.
They are correct at least in English English
I don't know how many times in my life that I've written it, but it has always been "judgment". It may at first look wrong, but it's how it's done here. And for me, there are times when I'd use "spelt" for more than than the grain, and others I'd use "spelled".
You might want to check the Macquarie Dictionary sometime... and watch how that changed over the editions.
I feel oppressed by the need to give you further information, but...
One edition (the 3rd?) recorded "judgment" as the main form and "judgement" as a variant.
The next edition recorded them as equal options.
The next edition recorded "judgement" as the main form and "judgment" as a variant.
So it's switched, according to the nearest thing we have to a record of Australian usage. The same with "acknowledgement" and "lodgement" and so forth. The more typical practice now is to include the 'e'.
At work we accordingly changed our spellings, as our general policy is to follow the Macquarie. But all hell broke loose when we tried that with court rules, which we draft. All the judges insisted on "judgment". Forget whether we had the policy right, what they reacted to most was that we'd changed the spelling of one of their most important words. Macquarie Dictionary be damned.
So when you say "it's how it's done here", you may well only be referring to court rooms and not the country as a whole.
Nic
Makes me almost miss TomB, the squamous and rugose bastard.
No dictionary is authoritative. They record usage. Do you want to be understood by those around you, or not?
Which post?
Do I really have to hold your hand and carefully explain to you that a record of Australian usage is a counter to your claim about how it's done "here"?
Or do I first have to explain to you in more detail that a great majority of people don't understand how dictionaries work and think they are rulebooks when they're not?
Or perhaps you can't grasp the difference between the general non-authoritativeness of a dictionary and the fact that my workplace has a defined policy to follow what the Macquarie records?
I'm feeling oppressed by the ambiguity and not knowing exactly which withering attack to launch in your direction. The nuance in your obtuseness is upsetting.
It wasn't a comment, it was a question. And the answer in a general context is no. If he was asking about statutory interpretation, then it's the policy of our drafting office to follow the Macquarie. I can't speak for other drafting offices.
NEXT!
You need to visit the west of Scotland, I'm sure we can find you some good old fashioned Protestant oppressors. Probably tea or Nescafe drinkers too.
I would take this to mean "authoratative" in the sense of "a reliable witness".
Rook is jujjing and it feels so good...
(Apologies to Peaches and Herb.)
¹ Becaues if you invoke TomB, might as well invoke Pyx_e too.
It may look like a question, but it was really a demand - cite me something on which I can rely.
@RooK is a DJ? Cool ...
DJ means District Judge in this household. So, yes?