|
| re: kitchen cabinets | Ián Txaglh | December 05, 2007 - 02:52 | | President Anglatzarâ | December 05, 2007 - 04:43 |
|
Parent message | | re: kitchen cabinets | Ián Txaglh | December 05, 2007 - 02:52 |
| RE: re: kitchen cabinets(#712), posted by President Anglatzarâ, [IP Hidden], December 05, 2007 - 04:43. Viewed 405 times. |
|
President Anglatzarâ
Group: admins
(3194 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 07:21) | > i am puzzled and not sure about what is going on... what for "kitchen cabinet"? two talossan citizens had a private debate on how to solve a particular problem. well, coincidentally, one is minister, second prime minister
I understand Miestrâ's reaction exactly. You certainly gave the impression that you had decided how to handle this by yourselves, and would reveal it to us when the deal was done.
If that's not what you meant to say, I think you have to be careful with what you write.
My own reaction was the same: WTF?
--
Servéu |
|
| | Ián Txaglh | December 05, 2007 - 05:13 |
|
Parent message | | President Anglatzarâ | December 05, 2007 - 04:43 |
| RE: re: kitchen cabinets(#714), posted by Ián Txaglh, [IP Hidden], December 05, 2007 - 05:13. Viewed 444 times. |
|
Ián Txaglh
Group: citizens
(462 posts total)
(last post: March 24, 2008 - 14:06) | > I understand Miestrâ's reaction exactly. You certainly gave the impression that you had decided how to handle this by yourselves, and would reveal it to us when the deal was done.
>
> If that's not what you meant to say, I think you have to be careful with what you write.
i am still puzzled. the only sentence, which may be understood in a way you did, is "after discussion with deet, we agreed on founding of "talossan telecom" (TT),..." but it implies no definitive decision or partisan act, it just says plainly, the the we agreed/concur/coalesce on some idea we proposed to discussion... i read in it nothing more.
does the verb "to agree" mean or imply verb "to decide"? yes, the sentence might be enriched by even more precise statement like "after discussion with deet, we agreed on a proposal for public discussion, which will enact a foundation of "talossan telecom" (TT),..." but i just made it short and have though not about such interpretations. mea culpa. then, i honestly admit i cannot be a talossan minister, cos i do not rule english sufficiently to express my-self properly. or i need to hire a english-native secretary ;)
anyway, i am not sure if we would be even legally able to do things like founding TT and transferring all domains to it... seneschál has not such power, imho.
_____________________________
Ián "Suôrsch Grültcätsfiglheu" Txaglh
el ministreu del glheþ és da cúlturâ
Lança!!
_____________________________
la viensità àl común
la liberançeu à l’underschidlëc’h
la tolerançeu àl toct |
|
| | President Anglatzarâ | December 05, 2007 - 05:17 |
|
Parent message | | Ián Txaglh | December 05, 2007 - 05:13 |
| RE: re: kitchen cabinets(#715), posted by President Anglatzarâ, [IP Hidden], December 05, 2007 - 05:17. Viewed 460 times. |
|
President Anglatzarâ
Group: admins
(3194 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 07:21) | > > I understand Miestrâ's reaction exactly. You certainly gave the impression that you had decided how to handle this by yourselves, and would reveal it to us when the deal was done.
> >
> > If that's not what you meant to say, I think you have to be careful with what you write.
>
> i am still puzzled. the only sentence, which may be understood in a way you did, is "after discussion with deet, we agreed on founding of "talossan telecom" (TT),..." but it implies no definitive decision or partisan act, it just says plainly, the the we agreed/concur/coalesce on some idea we proposed to discussion... i read in it nothing more.
>
> does the verb "to agree" mean or imply verb "to decide"?
"We agreed on founding" does actually mean that you have decided to found it, yes.
> mea culpa. then, i honestly admit i cannot be a talossan minister, cos i do not rule english sufficiently to express my-self properly. or i need to hire a english-native secretary ;)
I think it is enough that we solve these misunderstandings as they come. I'm sure there will be more in the future. ;)
--
Servéu |
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 06, 2007 - 15:33 |
|
Parent message | | President Anglatzarâ | December 05, 2007 - 05:17 |
| RE: re: kitchen cabinets(#717), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], December 06, 2007 - 15:33. Viewed 384 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51) | > > i am still puzzled. the only sentence, which may be understood in a way you did, is "after discussion with deet, we agreed on founding of "talossan telecom" (TT),..." but it implies no definitive decision or partisan act, it just says plainly, the the we agreed/concur/coalesce on some idea we proposed to discussion... i read in it nothing more.
> >
> > does the verb "to agree" mean or imply verb "to decide"?
>
> "We agreed on founding" does actually mean that you have decided to found it, yes.
So *if* we had founded some whatever, what would have been the problem?
_________________
- Dieter
A long history is fine, a long future is better.
|
|
| | President Anglatzarâ | December 06, 2007 - 16:07 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 06, 2007 - 15:33 |
| RE: re: kitchen cabinets(#718), posted by President Anglatzarâ, [IP Hidden], December 06, 2007 - 16:07. Viewed 430 times. |
|
President Anglatzarâ
Group: admins
(3194 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 07:21) | > > > i am still puzzled. the only sentence, which may be understood in a way you did, is "after discussion with deet, we agreed on founding of "talossan telecom" (TT),..." but it implies no definitive decision or partisan act, it just says plainly, the the we agreed/concur/coalesce on some idea we proposed to discussion... i read in it nothing more.
> > >
> > > does the verb "to agree" mean or imply verb "to decide"?
> >
> > "We agreed on founding" does actually mean that you have decided to found it, yes.
>
> So *if* we had founded some whatever, what would have been the problem?
If half the government had made a decision how to host our domains without telling the other half before they decided it all on their own, that would have been a problem, yes. I'd say it would have collapsed the government pretty efficiently.
--
Servéu |
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 06, 2007 - 16:57 |
|
Parent message | | President Anglatzarâ | December 06, 2007 - 16:07 |
| RE: re: kitchen cabinets(#719), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], December 06, 2007 - 16:57. Viewed 491 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51) | > > > > i am still puzzled. the only sentence, which may be understood in a way you did, is "after discussion with deet, we agreed on founding of "talossan telecom" (TT),..." but it implies no definitive decision or partisan act, it just says plainly, the the we agreed/concur/coalesce on some idea we proposed to discussion... i read in it nothing more.
> > > >
> > > > does the verb "to agree" mean or imply verb "to decide"?
> > >
> > > "We agreed on founding" does actually mean that you have decided to found it, yes.
> >
> > So *if* we had founded some whatever, what would have been the problem?
>
> If half the government had made a decision how to host our domains without telling the other half before they decided it all on their own, that would have been a problem, yes. I'd say it would have collapsed the government pretty efficiently.
*cough* But if John Tyrannosaurus Smith and Samantha Tyrannosaura Jones would choose to host something that they'd love to call "New Talossan Fora" at a place of their choice, who of our citizens had to follow them? I guess we who are not Smith and Jones already agreed on having a plebiscite to sort these things out.
More precisely to the point, Mr President, if I and anyone else would love to found a Talossan Art School, would this foundation have to be acknowledged by the government? If the government wouldn' like said foundation, they hopefully rather shrug and mind their government business instead of feeling tickled into causing a pretty efficient collapse.
_________________
- Dieter
A long history is fine, a long future is better.
|
|
| | Ián Txaglh | December 07, 2007 - 02:14 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 06, 2007 - 16:57 |
| RE: re: kitchen cabinets(#721), posted by Ián Txaglh, [IP Hidden], December 07, 2007 - 02:14. Viewed 451 times. |
|
Ián Txaglh
Group: citizens
(462 posts total)
(last post: March 24, 2008 - 14:06) | > > If half the government had made a decision how to host our domains without telling the other half before they decided it all on their own, that would have been a problem, yes. I'd say it would have collapsed the government pretty efficiently.
>
> *cough* But if John Tyrannosaurus Smith and Samantha Tyrannosaura Jones would choose to host something that they'd love to call "New Talossan Fora" at a place of their choice, who of our citizens had to follow them? I guess we who are not Smith and Jones already agreed on having a plebiscite to sort these things out.
>
> More precisely to the point, Mr President, if I and anyone else would love to found a Talossan Art School, would this foundation have to be acknowledged by the government? If the government wouldn' like said foundation, they hopefully rather shrug and mind their government business instead of feeling tickled into causing a pretty efficient collapse.
well, seeing this debate going on, i add my thoughts.
yes, it would be a problem, if two governmental members will start an enterprise hosting talossan official domains without this has been approved by whole government.
if any member of government will start a gallery web-page i would find it fine, while this might be classified as an acceptable personal initiative in our status quo. if we have 100+ citizens, it would be problem too, cos governmental members are public agent and i believe such public agents should avoid any enterprise during their public service. but we haven't and any initiative is welcome.
_____________________________
Ián "Suôrsch Grültcätsfiglheu" Txaglh
el ministreu del glheþ és da cúlturâ
Lança!!
_____________________________
la viensità àl común
la liberançeu à l’underschidlëc’h
la tolerançeu àl toct |
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 07, 2007 - 03:54 |
|
Parent message | | Ián Txaglh | December 07, 2007 - 02:14 |
| RE: re: kitchen cabinets(#723), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], December 07, 2007 - 03:54. Viewed 419 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51) | > > > If half the government had made a decision how to host our domains without telling the other half before they decided it all on their own, that would have been a problem, yes. I'd say it would have collapsed the government pretty efficiently.
> >
> > *cough* But if John Tyrannosaurus Smith and Samantha Tyrannosaura Jones would choose to host something that they'd love to call "New Talossan Fora" at a place of their choice, who of our citizens had to follow them? I guess we who are not Smith and Jones already agreed on having a plebiscite to sort these things out.
> >
> > More precisely to the point, Mr President, if I and anyone else would love to found a Talossan Art School, would this foundation have to be acknowledged by the government? If the government wouldn' like said foundation, they hopefully rather shrug and mind their government business instead of feeling tickled into causing a pretty efficient collapse.
>
> well, seeing this debate going on, i add my thoughts.
>
> yes, it would be a problem, if two governmental members will start an enterprise hosting talossan official domains without this has been approved by whole government.
>
> if any member of government will start a gallery web-page i would find it fine, while this might be classified as an acceptable personal initiative in our status quo. if we have 100+ citizens, it would be problem too, cos governmental members are public agent and i believe such public agents should avoid any enterprise during their public service. but we haven't and any initiative is welcome.
Well, if hosting the official domains of Talossa or providing a building in which the Parliament meets or running a parliament canteen would be done by means of private enterprise, and if the entrepreneurs would be high ranks of the government, and if they had passed a law that makes compulsory to by the service of their enterprise, this would be a construction that surely stinks.
But if, say, the President would buy himself an ice cream truck and would begin to sell ice cream in the Greater Talossan Area to earn himself a living, this would probably not be a shady deal, especially since there is no monetary reward for his governmental job. But then, if he would buy the ice cream truck only for the purpose of tricking our Republic (that doesn't pay their officials a single rusty groat for their efforts) in shame, this might be seen as some sublime case of political blackmail... which had to be examined by our massively underemployed juridical branch.
Oh well, life is difficult in these days.
_________________
- Dieter
A long history is fine, a long future is better.
|
|
| | la garçâ malpadert | December 06, 2007 - 17:18 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 06, 2007 - 16:57 |
| Collective responsibility explained... again(#720), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], December 06, 2007 - 17:18. Viewed 406 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29) | > More precisely to the point, Mr President, if I and anyone else would love to found a Talossan Art School, would this foundation have to be acknowledged by the government?
Let's put it this way. It comes out in the paper that Angela Merkel and one other cabinet member are discussing starting a private corporation which would bid to take over one of the major infrastructural concerns of the BRD - I dunno, private prisons or the railways or whatever. This hadn't been discussed with the rest of the Government, let alone the Bundestag. And Angela comes on TV and says, in German: "Why shouldn't I have the right of any private citizen to start whatever companies I like, with whichever partners I like?"
Because - one might say - Jo Blow is allowed to start whatever private businesses or ventures she likes, while Kanzlerin Merkel is not, except after consultation with the rest of the Government. It's called "collective responsibility" and is the basis of all Cabinet governments. She is not a President and does not have the right to unilateral action - only the right to be the leader of a team. The head of a parliamentary government simply does not have the freedom of action of a private citizen because they are collectively responsible to the rest of the Government, and to the legislature.
If Deet's reaction to this is "but this is Talossa, not Germany", then he and I have such different conceptions about what the nature of the Talossan project is as to be irreconcilable.
Miestrâ Schivâ
Minister of Immigration
Editor, Qator Itrìns
Founder-President, ZRT - Party of National Unity
Chief High Language Geek of the Talossan Republic
TALOSSA, C’È ASÚNTS SERIÖSEN!
|
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 07, 2007 - 03:41 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | December 06, 2007 - 17:18 |
| RE: Collective responsibility explained... again(#722), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], December 07, 2007 - 03:41. Viewed 462 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51) | > > More precisely to the point, Mr President, if I and anyone else would love to found a Talossan Art School, would this foundation have to be acknowledged by the government?
>
> Let's put it this way. It comes out in the paper that Angela Merkel and one other cabinet member are discussing starting a private corporation which would bid to take over one of the major infrastructural concerns of the BRD - I dunno, private prisons or the railways or whatever. This hadn't been discussed with the rest of the Government, let alone the Bundestag. And Angela comes on TV and says, in German: "Why shouldn't I have the right of any private citizen to start whatever companies I like, with whichever partners I like?"
At the risk of being accused of libel, German politicians (even high ranks like Ex-Chancellor Schröder) are acting like this. Anyway, this statement would open an extra-Talossan debate that possibly doesn't have to be discussed in the Hallway of a Talossan Chamber of Parliament.
> Because - one might say - Jo Blow is allowed to start whatever private businesses or ventures she likes, while Kanzlerin Merkel is not, except after consultation with the rest of the Government. It's called "collective responsibility" and is the basis of all Cabinet governments. She is not a President and does not have the right to unilateral action - only the right to be the leader of a team. The head of a parliamentary government simply does not have the freedom of action of a private citizen because they are collectively responsible to the rest of the Government, and to the legislature.
So, non-fictitiously speaking, this didn't happen in Talossa anyway. Jan and I had a talk by ICQ, which, in summary, was published immediatly after the talk, as food for thought and talk. Unfortunately there have been grammatical and semantical slips in the synopsis, that both participants of the talk didn't see, as both of them are not native speakers of English. So instead of simple food for thought and talk the proposal became food for negative thought and fiery talk. These things happen, apparently. As the grammatical and semantical issues have been clarified, the grammar crisis should be over now.
> If Deet's reaction to this is "but this is Talossa, not Germany", then he and I have such different conceptions about what the nature of the Talossan project is as to be irreconcilable.
Why don't you just let me react before you offer an anticipation of my reactions? This makes discussions look kind of didactic, Mama.
_________________
- Dieter
A long history is fine, a long future is better.
|
|
| | President Anglatzarâ | December 07, 2007 - 04:40 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 07, 2007 - 03:41 |
| RE: Collective responsibility explained... again(#724), posted by President Anglatzarâ, [IP Hidden], December 07, 2007 - 04:40. Viewed 453 times. |
|
President Anglatzarâ
Group: admins
(3194 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 07:21) | > So, non-fictitiously speaking, this didn't happen in Talossa anyway.
No, but your question to me was "Let's say this was what happened, would it have been so bad?"
If we all agree that it didn't happen, but would have been bad if it had happened, let's close the case.
--
Servéu |
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 07, 2007 - 17:27 |
|
Parent message | | President Anglatzarâ | December 07, 2007 - 04:40 |
| *sigh*(#725), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], December 07, 2007 - 17:27. Viewed 463 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51) | > > So, non-fictitiously speaking, this didn't happen in Talossa anyway.
>
> No, but your question to me was "Let's say this was what happened, would it have been so bad?"
>
> If we all agree that it didn't happen, but would have been bad if it had happened, let's close the case.
Somebody please draw a cartoon about a group of ant-sailors that have been rescued from a tempest in a teacup after their nutshell frigate was about to sink.
_________________
- Dieter
A long history is fine, a long future is better.
|
|
| | E.S. Börnatfiglheu | December 09, 2007 - 17:52 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 07, 2007 - 17:27 |
| RE: *sigh*(#726), posted by E.S. Börnatfiglheu, [IP Hidden], December 09, 2007 - 17:52. Viewed 448 times. |
|
E.S. Börnatfiglheu
Group: citizens
(739 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 11:06) | A tempest might be in a teacup... but then again so is the boat.
Eiric Börnatfiglheu |
|
|
|
