Nah, I don't agree with it Cornflower, I was just saying it's a valid point but too minor to make a difference in this one instance.

Much as I dislike the practice and disagree with it, I don't think the burqua should be banned nor discouraged per se.

I'm with you that the wearer needs to comply with common sense requirements not to wear a full head covering where to wear it risks public safety and may support criminal activity.

Within the context of common sense requirements the wearer ought not then feel that their chosen cultural or political practice is being targeted and that they are being denied their free choice.

In present day society many personal freedoms have been sacrificed for the common good in the name of national security and while people don't like it, due to the legislation that covers these things people have no right to complain and just have to go along with being x-rayed, prodded and searched. Being required to remove a head covering ought to be part and parcel of this.

JanF

Thank you, agreed.

Spelling Wars - episode 20, the Saga Continues, (apologies to the central debate)

Rusty,
Are you accusing Pericles of being a liar for making a spelling error? I would hope not! 

This is despite what he said being verifiably incorrect.  

Pericles argued that expediential was not a real word. His reasoning was that the word did not appear in his spellchecker. 

Putting foward an argument in good faith which is later shown to be incorrect is not telling a lie.

Putting it a different way, your accusation of lies is about as sensible as saying that since Victorians elected a Labour (oops, spelling error) Labor government ten years ago, and now recently they have changed their minds and elected the Liberals, then Victorians are liars.

Not so, they have simply changed their opinion. At one point they believed something to be true, later they believed something different. 

I and everyone else here have put forward our opinions in good faith. Please, analyse what I and everyone says, and put a counter opinion if you like. Certainly, my ideas regarding the spelling of certain words needed correcting. Such a correction would be called 'fair comment'.

And some of what you've said about me is true. I did study tertiary level maths years ago, but I've never claimed to be an authority on maths or anything else. It's many years since I've had a maths book in the house. And my maths spelling is (apparently) not strong. That's partly because we studied maths by doing it rather than writing prosaically about it.  

However, name calling (liar) is more akin to personal abuse than constructive or fair comment.          

Dan,

Do learn to read.

I am accusing you of lying about the validity of the word "expodential".

It *was* a typo. You *may* have "believed" it to be a word through ancient mishearing, I allow you that. It was the obviously self-serving attempt to make it seem more than that in the face of informed correction. To remind you again: "acceptable term" and "learned at school". Nope. Never was. You might have "believed" that, but since a welter of people who use maths questioned this, it was then upon you to actually check your facts. Instead you kept trying to bluff your way. At any point, if anybody had accepted your bluff, they would have "believed" something not true. No doubt this suits you.

Everything since the actual correction has been in relation to your attempts to lie about it, which was not in good faith as you had good reason to check it. Others here use maths frequently in complex tasks, myself in the analysis of biochemical events. Getting a rasberry is a *strong* signal to go check, not to reflexively attempt a snow job about the acceptability of the error.

It is amusing to watch schoolkids try to justify how they did everything correct in arriving at wrong answers. Contemptible in an adult who claims teaching experience, education in pure and applied mathematics and a philosophy degree.

And it still continues in your repeated deliberate attempts to mispercieve the offence.

What makes you think the results of elections are the same class of information as maths terminology? You had flimsy or no basis for your "belief" about "expodential", such beliefs are not due the same respect as well-grounded, considered "beliefs" let alone comprehensive knowledge of the topic.

How many *other* false beliefs do you have that are similarly spurious?

This most recent exchange, and that in which you tried similar chicanery to defend the use of a cherry-picked quote to misrepresent the clear views of a well-known scientist, cement for me the conclusion that you do not argue in good faith.

Rusty

There are other issues in relation to rights etc that are more important than this one. What about refusing medical services to people who continue to smoke - I don't agree with this, but a discussion is a good thing?Or, as we now know how dangerous the sun is particularly for young people and melanoma, which is often fatal, do we bring in laws that prevent people from sunbaking, after all, any change in skin colour has been proven to be dangerous. What is it about our society,where young women feel, that having a tan is attractive? I think we should look at the attitudes of the west re women and girls - it's pretty atrocious in my view - too much emphasis on looks etc even when women are pregnant and after the birth of their child - it's ludicrous and destructive!

There are other issues re young women such as anorexia nervosa, far more important than this. I've never heard Fred Nile or Senator Bernadino? air concern over these issues. In fact, I don't hear them doing much work at all. Who can remember the last time either of them went in to bat for sole parents,for example, who are mostly women.Or how women suffer the most out of WorkChoices, poverty and unemployment? Just Muslim bashing is their motivation. Fred Nile (Mr do-nothing in parliament)has made some pretty damning and outrageous attitudes towards the Islamic faith, and Senator Bern.is a staunch catholic!
I've noticed that women wearing a hijab are not too keen making eye contact, and who can blame them? I go out of my way to smile at women from the middle east,and/or talk to their kids/babies as I know too many have suffered discrimination,even violence from 'westerners'.I've heard of some having their hijab torn from their heads for example, which is assault. shameful stuff!

Thank you for once again leaping to my defence, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Are you accusing Pericles of being a liar for making a spelling error? I would hope not!<<

I am most grateful. Especially for the exclamation mark. Most persuasive.

But I think you may have missed the point once more.

>>Pericles argued that expediential was not a real word. His reasoning was that the word did not appear in his spellchecker. Putting foward an argument in good faith which is later shown to be incorrect is not telling a lie.<<

So true. So true. Which is why I acknowledged the error - as well as the source of my error - immediately I became aware of it. Not that the spellchecker was an excuse, you understand. More an admission that my lack of research had been my shortcoming.

Had I, on the other hand, insisted that your admonition was misplaced, and had instead invented a rationale that purported to prove my point, that would have been, clearly, the creation of an untruth. I could have claimed that it was an archaism, for example.

Had I then, when challenged a second time, still insisted that I was correct, and built another invention on top of the first one, you might be justified in terming that action, "compounding the lie". Perhaps I would have cited my old Latin master, who had specifically commanded me to abjure its use.

But I didn't.

Is that starting to make it all a little clearer?