Dunno about tall and short stuff but a 'Cafe Americano' is made up to about the same strenght as a cup of filter or drip coffee.That's your normal cup of Joe.
Cappucino is a shot of Espresso topped up with frothy milk.The I-ties usually drink these at breakfast time.
Espresso is a 'shot'.
That's my understanding any way.Everything else is for girls.
and a macchiato is the one with the designs in it.
People say I should be more humble I hope they understand, they don't listen when you mumble
Get a shiny metal Revolut card! And a free tenner! https://revolut.com/referral/jamesb8!G10D21
There is going to be a documentary on the Catholics in Spain on BBC tonight that will make the adoption practices of our boys look like a model of transparency and openness.
Seems that from the early days of Franco right up to the 90's they were selecting 'unfit' parents, telling them that their babies were born dead and selling them on
Although at this stage thats a bit of a waste of an because nothing they do really shocks anymore. Heard them on the radio about it this morning and I think I might give it a miss, only so much misery one can take.
Saw this in the paper also during the week. AFAIK you can use both, not sure in what circumstances though. I'm sure Kayroo will tell us.
Essentially you use the word referenda in much the same way that you would use agenda.
Where a plebiscite put to the people to amend the Constitution has only one option on it then it is a referendum, just as a list of items to discuss at a meeting which only has one item is an agendum.
Where the same plebiscite has more than one option on it then it is a referenda, just as a list of items to discuss at a meeting is an agenda.
Where there is more than one referendum then you use referendums and where there are more than one referenda you use referendas.
While this is the correct way to use the words from an orthographical point of view it is probable that given the large scale shift towards using "referendum" as the singular noun regardless of the number of items on the ballot paper the actual use of the word will have to be reconsidered and amended making the definition I have given above redundant. It's actually quite a good example of a large scale sociolinguistic shift in meaning much as the word gay or faggot have also shifted from their true meanings of fun or lighthearted and a bunch of sticks respectively to something quite removed from that in modern times.
You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
Essentially you use the word referenda in much the same way that you would use agenda.
Where a plebiscite put to the people to amend the Constitution has only one option on it then it is a referendum, just as a list of items to discuss at a meeting which only has one item is an agendum.
Where the same plebiscite has more than one option on it then it is a referenda, just as a list of items to discuss at a meeting is an agenda.
Where there is more than one referendum then you use referendums and where there are more than one referenda you use referendas.
While this is the correct way to use the words from an orthographical point of view it is probable that given the large scale shift towards using "referendum" as the singular noun regardless of the number of items on the ballot paper the actual use of the word will have to be reconsidered and amended making the definition I have given above redundant. It's actually quite a good example of a large scale sociolinguistic shift in meaning much as the word gay or faggot have also shifted from their true meanings of fun or lighthearted and a bunch of sticks respectively to something quite removed from that in modern times.
Let me see if I have the right then.The forthcoming plebiscite contains 2 questions (aswell as voting for the President).Each question has one option,meaning that they are referendums.
If each plebiscite had more then one option,they would be referendas.
Right? the guy in the Referendum Commission ad is grammatically correct then?
Official Head Marshall of Waterford Gay Pride Festival 2015
How/why do you know all of that stuff Keith? Does it go with the job or are you actually interested in grammar? *shudder*
Combination of knowing a little Latin, being interested in the English language generally and a love of grammar from an academic point of view. In this case grammar wasn't the issue but rather the Latin. (I won't get into the pluralisation of the gerundive "referendum" or "referenda")
I actually had this conversation with a colleague who has a doctorate in Medieval poetry and a Masters in classics and he agrees with me on the above so I'm reasonably sure I'm right. It was an excellent conversation too.
You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
Suspending a superconducting disc above or below a set of permanent magnets. The magnetic field is locked inside the superconductor ; a phenomenon called 'Qu...
I actually had this conversation with a colleague who has a doctorate in Medieval poetry and a Masters in classics and he agrees with me on the above so I'm reasonably sure I'm right. It was an excellent conversation too.
Not enough elephants in the world to provide the ivory for that tower
wasn't sure if i should open a thread for this but ill say it here.
Came 5th in ppp iwf online exclusive thingy to here. 3 places and a bubble. good event enjoyed but alas no ticket for me.................... Till this morning I log in and 3rd place finisher thecueist has offerd me his ticket and any winnings we split, but theres more any winnings from his side go to the irish cancer society. I just wanted to say thansk to the cueiest and hope we get some run good. Iv also said as im playinmg for free ill give 50% of anything from my end to his charity too.
well the job iam at i allways kinda knew that it wouldn't last, so i put the wheels in motion to get a permanent resident visa for australia earlier this year so that i would have a contingencey plan if the shit did hit the fan. thing is now, is the job is allmost 100%gone and iam still waithing for a decision on my visa. so the whole thing is up in the air atm, obviously being selfemployed and trying to get the dole is going to be pretty much near immpossible.
i can see myself having to phone joe duffy complaining about this early next year.
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide to...View Post
Am I wrong in thinking that the non-Judges pay referendum is essentially about having more of those ridiculously expensive tribunals? (albeit but this time they'll be 'justified' as they can make findings of fact)
I don't think the "Findings of Fact" "in the public interest" will be the same kind of beast that the tribunals as they exist at the moment.
Let me see if I have the right then.The forthcoming plebiscite contains 2 questions (aswell as voting for the President).Each question has one option,meaning that they are referendums.
If each plebiscite had more then one option,they would be referendas.
Right? the guy in the Referendum Commission ad is grammatically correct then?
Technically no.
Referenda means, in the strictest sense, things to be referred. I suppose that means that it could include a list of separate questions but I prefer the neater definition I have given above. Therefore if we were given a number of proposed wordings (such as the right to life amendment) then it would be a referenda.
To make it even trickier, if we had a referendum and a referenda on the same day there would be no logical pluralisation which, in and of itself, is a reasonable argument to assume that the votes next Thursday shall be a referenda as that option gives us the most scope for grammatical and orthographic harmony. That said it would still, strictly speaking, be incorrect.
Cliffs: There is no easy answer. Have a beer and forget about it. Also Vote No.
You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide to...View Post
no, no - in that situation when they say they only have a "tall" coffee - you say - and slowly - 'fck off and give me a small coffee'. A fcking coffee chain doesn't have the right to change universally accepted sizes. Its just some American bullsh*t to make you feel comfortable spending €4 on a coffee: 'ohh, everything has special names'.
Referenda means, in the strictest sense, things to be referred. I suppose that means that it could include a list of separate questions but I prefer the neater definition I have given above. Therefore if we were given a number of proposed wordings (such as the right to life amendment) then it would be a referenda.
To make it even trickier, if we had a referendum and a referenda on the same day there would be no logical pluralisation which, in and of itself, is a reasonable argument to assume that the votes next Thursday shall be a referenda as that option gives us the most scope for grammatical and orthographic harmony. That said it would still, strictly speaking, be incorrect.
Cliffs: There is no easy answer. Have a beer and forget about it. Also Vote No.
Ty.I'll be voting yes though.
You know a yes vote on the judicial pay thing is going to romp home with the plebs,right?
Afterall, vox populi,vox Dei.
Official Head Marshall of Waterford Gay Pride Festival 2015
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide to...View Post
Am I wrong in thinking that the non-Judges pay referendum is essentially about having more of those ridiculously expensive tribunals? (albeit but this time they'll be 'justified' as they can make findings of fact)
Yes, you are wrong.
The proposed amendment giving the Oireachtas power to conduct investigations into matters of public importance will, in essence, allow the Dail to bring people before its committees and investigate them, likely without any judicial oversight. The Oireachtas itself will be the body charged with the investigation, with the conduct of the examination of witnesses, with determining the procedures to be used and in determining where "the public good" outweighs the rights of the citizen to certain protections such as a presumption of innocence, a right to silence, a right to privacy, a right to a fair trial etc.
The Oireachtas are allowing themselves the power to set up McCarthy type enquiries "in the public interest" and are snatching a judicial power for themselves. Personally the idea of Michael Lowry, Michael Healy-Rae, Brendan Howlin, Joan Burton, Padraig MacLochlainn and so on being able to make findings of fact about a private citizens conduct and that finding having the weight of the Oireachtas behind it sickens me to my core.
The real problem with Shatter is when you look at his measures in totality. He is taking control of judicial pay, giving the Oireachtas a judicial power and taking wholesale control of the legal profession. Over 50% of the cases in the Courts involve the State in some capacity. The most effective venue for the vindication of your rights is the Courts and the vindication of those rights is usually against the abuses of Executive power. How effective can that bulwark of democracy be when the Executive have taken such effective control over it?
You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
You know a yes vote on the judicial pay thing is going to romp home with the plebs,right?
Afterall, vox populi,vox Dei.
Oh it should romp home with 80% or more in favour I'd imagine. It's worded in the most awful possible way but it's too late to do anything about that now. Judge's pay should be reduced in line with cuts across the State but I'm in the camp that doesn't think that it requires a Constitutional amendment. When PAYE goes up judges pay the new rate if memory serves so I disagree with the legal argument the Government have made. O'Byrne -v- Minister for Finance clearly states that so long as a tax isn't designed to attack the judiciary that it does not fall foul of the Constitutional protection on judicial pay and that had to do with pensions also.
Regardless of that it's the 2nd proposal that's the really scary one. Whatever about how terrible the drafting on the 1st one is the idea that the Dail will be conducting inquiries and making findings of fact is really quite troubling.
You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
also parliamentary enquiries are waaaaay cooler than judicial snorefests (and every other country does them)
think Ollie North in front of the Senate, history-making
imagine if we could have dragged D***is O'**** in front of a Dail Commit-tay 14 years ago and thrown the fucker in jail when he was proven to be lying through his teeth? As opposed to the Tribunal farce that ensued? kept a bunch of wig-wearers in Bentleys I suppose...no idea why you would want a continuance of that
"We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
Oh it should romp home with 80% or more in favour I'd imagine. It's worded in the most awful possible way but it's too late to do anything about that now. Judge's pay should be reduced in line with cuts across the State but I'm in the camp that doesn't think that it requires a Constitutional amendment. When PAYE goes up judges pay the new rate if memory serves so I disagree with the legal argument the Government have made. O'Byrne -v- Minister for Finance clearly states that so long as a tax isn't designed to attack the judiciary that it does not fall foul of the Constitutional protection on judicial pay and that had to do with pensions also.
Regardless of that it's the 2nd proposal that's the really scary one. Whatever about how terrible the drafting on the 1st one is the idea that the Dail will be conducting inquiries and making findings of fact is really quite troubling.
Exactly. I found it hard to believe that the constitutional provision was invoked in the case of the income levy. It was not a reduction in pay. it was a change in the tax rate that applied to all sectors. Judges were not being singled out in any way so there was no question of undue interference. IIRC it was the judiciary themselves who raised the issue and because of that the Govt had to climb down (open to correction on that).
Surely the amendment should simply change the law so that the pay of judges is benchmarked to some equivalent office in the civil service. If that goes up by 10%, fair enough. If it goes down by 10% fair enough. If taxes increase across the board, fair enough..
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide to...View Post
The D***is O'**** situation shouldn't be used to illustrate the benefit of the system. Some of those rezoning guys maybe. D***is O'**** has proven he is a excellent innovator - look at what Dig***l has done in Jam**ca and H**ti. All his situation shows if that if you are dealing with a corrupt government, you are forced to play by their rules. He subsequent track record speaks for itself imo.
WTF?
bribing Ministers in order to win lucrative contracts is not cool, no matter if you are Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or any other 'excellent innovator'
"We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
Dunno about tall and short stuff but a 'Cafe Americano' is made up to about the same strenght as a cup of filter or drip coffee.That's your normal cup of Joe.
Cappucino is a shot of Espresso topped up with frothy milk.The I-ties usually drink these at breakfast time.
Espresso is a 'shot'.
That's my understanding any way.Everything else is for girls.
My local garage (Co Limerick) has a new machine and I have a little laugh every time I see the hand written sticker next to the Americano button that says "Just Coffee"
Oh it should romp home with 80% or more in favour I'd imagine. It's worded in the most awful possible way but it's too late to do anything about that now. Judge's pay should be reduced in line with cuts across the State but I'm in the camp that doesn't think that it requires a Constitutional amendment. When PAYE goes up judges pay the new rate if memory serves so I disagree with the legal argument the Government have made. O'Byrne -v- Minister for Finance clearly states that so long as a tax isn't designed to attack the judiciary that it does not fall foul of the Constitutional protection on judicial pay and that had to do with pensions also.
Regardless of that it's the 2nd proposal that's the really scary one. Whatever about how terrible the drafting on the 1st one is the idea that the Dail will be conducting inquiries and making findings of fact is really quite troubling.
This is all fine and dandy but it doesnt change the fact that nobody likes Judges and everybody thinks that legal professionals are overpaid.
You can thank that child porn loving judge and the legal eagles that got rich from the tax payers dolla during the tribunals for the public's opinion on this imo.
^^^^ All generalisations are dangerous,including this one,but like it or lump it,that's how Joe Bloggs sees it imho.
Official Head Marshall of Waterford Gay Pride Festival 2015
My local garage (Co Limerick) has a new machine and I have a little laugh every time I see the hand written sticker next to the Americano button that says "Just Coffee"
this kind of innovation should be celebrated.
Is that how you crash a wedding? yes it is, Bionic Barry, yes it is.
Soooooooooo excited about Skyrim, will make a lack of gainful employment such a boon! Will almost be upset if it transpired I get to keep the job actually, will all the stuff I've been thinking about doing over the next two months, gaming, pokering, TV series watching
Decided not to buy a new PC for Skyrim / Battlefield 3 though, have upgraded my graphics card instead (to a HD 6850 1Gb) and will eke another 12 months out of my current PC as a result. Arkham City is out today as well, its predecessor was the GOTY in my opinion and the early reviews for this have been extremely extremely positive. Probably won't pick it up until after Christmas though, still have loads of games to finish before even starting Skyrim and Battlefield!
The proposed amendment giving the Oireachtas power to conduct investigations into matters of public importance will, in essence, allow the Dail to bring people before its committees and investigate them, likely without any judicial oversight....
Stopped reading when I got to this blatant and outrageous misrepresentation, nice use of the word likely BTW.
That twerp Ronan Mullan tried that on this morning too. Its absolutely clear that anyone who feels the need can bring themselves down to the Four Goldmines.
Stopped reading when I got to this blatant and outrageous misrepresentation, nice use of the word likely BTW.
That twerp Ronan Mullan tried that on this morning too. Its absolutely clear that anyone who feels the need can bring themselves down to the Four Goldmines.
Will there be judicial oversight of the committee while it is operating?
What rights would someone who is called in front of it have compared to one in front of a judicial led tribunal?
Is that how you crash a wedding? yes it is, Bionic Barry, yes it is.
bribing Ministers in order to win lucrative contracts is not cool, no matter if you are Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or any other 'excellent innovator'
Bribing Ministers that would ultimately be the people appointing committees to "investigate" you and make findings of "fact". Nemo iudex in causa sua (No man may be a judge in his own cause) is a pretty fundamental part of a fair system of justice. Not much use investigating someone if the culpable parties are your bosses.
You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide to...View Post
Which do you think is more likely though:
(a) people are willing to pay money
(b) people will ask for money
obv two-to-tango etc, but its not an isolated case of corruption from that time period and before, it was fairly endemic, so its more likely imo that the system was corrupt already rather than an external person came in and corrupted it
I agree that corruption was endemic however you are essentially saying "if you can't beat them, join them" and in my opinion that attitude would have contributed to the corruption becoming endemic.
Apologies if I am misunderstanding your point, which is very possible!
Stopped reading when I got to this blatant and outrageous misrepresentation, nice use of the word likely BTW.
That twerp Ronan Mullan tried that on this morning too. Its absolutely clear that anyone who feels the need can bring themselves down to the Four Goldmines.
It really isn't a misrepresentation.
The internal rules of the Oireachtas are non-justiciable. The Judiciary cannot regulate the internal workings of the Dail or Seanad. Beyond that there would be an enormous separation of powers issue if the Supreme Court or High Court were to interfere and tell the Oireachtas how they must conduct their "inquiries".
The most dangerous part though, and the part with absolutely no judicial oversight whatsoever, is where there is a question of a conflict between the rights of the citizen and the public interest. The Oireachtas, under the Constitution, shall have authority to determine that question. If a power is specifically reserved for one branch it cannot be subsumed by another and therefore there is no right of appeal.
It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry into any matter to which subsection 2° applies.
The Courts will have no right to overturn a decision if the Oireachtas decides that a persons right to silence, or their right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is infringed. The Oireachtas is giving itself carte blanche to make this decision and it cannot be reviewed as the Constitution will specifically state that it is for the Houses themselves to determine the balance.
You are technically correct...the best kind of correct
World Record Holder for Long Distance Soul Reads: May 7th 2011
Bribing Ministers that would ultimately be the people appointing committees to \"investigate\" you and make findings of \"fact\". Nemo iudex in causa sua (No man may be a judge in his own cause) is a pretty fundamental part of a fair system of justice. Not much use investigating someone if the culpable parties are your bosses.
Audi alteram partem bitch!
Happiness is not a goal; it is a by-product. ~Eleanor Roosevelt
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide to...View Post
no, no - in that situation when they say they only have a "tall" coffee - you say - and slowly - 'fck off and give me a small coffee'. A fcking coffee chain doesn't have the right to change universally accepted sizes. Its just some American bullsh*t to make you feel comfortable spending €4 on a coffee: 'ohh, everything has special names'.
Haha too right- Have you read this Hitch? Some interesting insights into the world of coffee shop extortion.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment