Yournamehere

Yep. Somewhat adventurous use of 'several'; I thought much the same. It leads to the conundrum that the square root of 2 is 'several'.

And finally for this morning, since the question has been asked, when JD said I was angry, that was factually incorrect. ie Posted by him but not a fact. HTH. Yourn

Hoisted. Petard.

Since the origins of bigly, muchly seem to have passed some people by; and for the enjoyment of those who may not have seen it since. This is bigly (You may scoff at the guardian, the same clip is available elsewhere) In the interests of balance, it is now claimed - though I don't know if accepted, that he said 'big league'. (My own opinion is unimportant) Research methodology: The writer googled, 'Did Trump really say bigly'; the writer did not only take the first result that confirmed his prejudice; the writer included two alternative answers to the inquiry. Happy days Yourn ETA to add 'me'

Haiku thread again 5-7-5 guideline you say Chocolate covered bugnuts

Which was a surprise.

QFT

No Nazis/Jews isn't Proportionate it violates proportionality in war: that is exactly what proportionality in war is about. Yes I'm over 45; I had no idea you were referring to Northern Ireland. Don't start me on that; those people are still out there and they still frighten me. I have had vague long term connections with Aldershot: I assure you the Irish terrorists will have no sympathy from me whatsoever. Why lefty hand tied logic (if you are referring to my recent posts)? It was a point of rhetoric as much as anything: totally apolitical: I haven't said that anyone can't do anything, nor suggested anything needs explaining to any terrorists, you're just making stuff up again, just like you used to. For myself I would like to see these disputes settled by who can make the best cake: There would be a lot less blood shed! (Insert obligatory joke about "well you obviously han't been watching Celebratory Master-chef Challenge in the Kitchen lately then"). Finally, Gareth, I wonder if we are arguing the same thing from different ends? I am saying that there is proportionality in war; and that when it is violated it is an outrage (because without it these atrocities would be accepted as a normal part of warfare). I wonder if the point that you are making is that, yes although it would be nice if there were, there isn't because it is violated so often? Anyway, I gotta crack on now. Addios.

Another BBC update In a move NO ONE saw coming... "Toby Carvery's owner has apologised after the company felled an ancient oak tree and admitted "we need to tighten our protocols" in a letter seen by the BBC."

I'm sorry, but you've got me: I can't see the relevance of any of this to the point under discussion. Nor more pertinently to the post you have quoted. Mark J (I think) 'brought up the Nazis' as a rhetorical point to illustrate that there IS proportionality in war. I referred to that in my explanation but regardless of either, how does your first line's conclusion follow from that? What do you mean by 'two tier wars'; and 'disagreement on our doorstep'? My logic wasn't intended to explain that, nor Pinochet, nor any other conflict; so you're deriding it for something that it isn't. It is 'by our rules of engagement' that we judge these attacks to be an outrage. That is the point at hand. If I were to judge them by other rules and principles - ie (presumably) those of the terrorists - then (presumably) they wouldn't be an outrage, they would be justified. But I don't. One person's freedom fighter is indeed another persons terrorist.

So sorry you think that waffle, Gareth; for myself, I thought it a succinct and well argued point; but Hey ho. Ah! but then, everything is waffle to you isn't it? Have you ever wondered if the fault lies with yourself. On the other hand it is nice (and refreshing) that you have replied without the usual impolite insults and unfounded assumptions. (I mean this in all seriousness: well done.) As to suicide bombings: do you mean specifically as regards the Taliban and civilians or to include the Japanese suicide bombers and their military targets? It is true, they are beyond the 'normal' rules of engagement (as I, a mere bystander would understand them) and that that is why they are considered an outrage. As to their 'proportionality' (in the sense we are discussing here) I would have said that the Taliban's attacks on civilian targets are obviously at odds with concept/principle* of proportionality. Specificly because of the civilian target. But the point still stands: The suicide attacks by members of the Taliban upon civilian targets is considered an outrage because of the concept of proportionality in war which they violate. The Japanese suicide attacks are probably best left for another day actually - and another thread - this is already a mahoosive enough derail as it is. Nice to be able to discuss a point in a civil manner, Gareth. *I'm unsure how it is regarded: if there is a more suitable term, then use that PS As to explaining them: wow, that would take a long, long time.

Well. Yes it is. If there was no proportionality in war as you claim then nukes would be the first option and bugger the number of civilian casualties. The objectives would have been met. This obviously doesn't happen: we use a land army first, specifically* to minimise civilian losses. Thus there IS proportionality in war: civilian losses are (meant to be) minimised. This is why Israel treating all Palestinian civilians as 'Hammas' and killing them at a ratio of (was it) thirty to one compared to their own losses is considered an outrage. This is why in the earlier example, the Holocaust is considered an outrage** : if there was no proportionality in war, then the Nazis would be justified in their atrocity because the high civilian death rate would not be be an objection to them achieving their aims. The excessive civilian casualties is considered an outrage precisely because there is proportionality in war. *for the sake of this argument: in real life other tactical considerations would no doubt apply ** again for the sake of this argument: it is also considered an outrage for many other things too

Just quickly: (anyone) be careful of judging 'the amount of green' by the google street view pics further up the thread: the one in leaf is eight years old, the one out leaf is two years old (but still has full crown of twigs) Sudden oak death syndrome notwithstanding. Yourn

No. People don't like to see beauty & grandeur destroyed by ignorance & greed. These things become part of people's personal landscape: it leaves a hole when they are taken away.

I think it was mentioned briefly on another thread and then this one took over. (Han't checked but maybe in the news thread. Someone started with "OK which one of you did this?") ETA Check on Your Activity, find your post and go from there

Just out of interest, would a job like this normally be done from a platform or would it normally be roped? I was wondering if it was done from a platform because that would be quicker (because able to drop bigger lumps) because they knew they had to get in and get it down on the ground as fast as possible: ie before too many people noticed/could do anything about it. TIA Yourn

BBC Story Updated Ergin Erbil, leader of Enfield Council, described the felling as "an outrage" and said the authority was "looking at all legal options". He said: "Our experts surveyed this tree in December and they said it's healthy and could live another few hundred years so I completely oppose the argument from the leaseholder that this posed a health and safety risk."

Surely in a tree of that age, decay is just a part of its life-cycle? The dead branches are as much a part of the tree as the living crown: they last for centuries. Sims like it was overseen by a man of little imagination, in an office: someone for whom it was just another 'green thing in the way'. Move the people not the tree: put some railings around it with a notice explaining how although the stag-horns are as hard as iron and part of its character, other pieces may drop and as much as you might like to, it's just not safe to sit underneath it. Rename the carvery The Ancient/Enfield Oak make a feature/attraction of it. Remove, halo, all that spindly stuff around it: give it room to breath, room to be seen, room to live; create a landscape in which it can be appreciated and admired. So many options.

And a quick bit of basic research reveals... <rustle of envelopes being opened> And the winners are...

"Donald Trump has blamed Volodymyr Zelensky for starting the war with Russia the day after a massive Russian attack killed 35 people and injured 117 others in Ukraine." Linky (BBC)

Click Me

Which friend suggested? What did I miss? I did google it, but afterwards, hence the addition of the hyphen as per the edit.

Point of pedantry: the book is entitled 'Nineteen Eighty-Four'. 1984 was a year: its degree of sensibility would have been a personal thing.

Ah that would be our Teppichhedging ™ An interesting idea - especially for decorative walkways but it would be very high-maintenance: every shoot would be forever throwing up new spring growth. Does sound like a good experiment though.