Profit

[Flosshilde]

No, I don't think you are.

[ahinton]

Ah, ahinton, I see you have also now succumbed to the famous 'Grewism' to which you hitherto scornfully referred, but on this particular occasion you have decided that 'we' should not actually include 'you', and all admirably like-minded souls, but that the 'we', in this instance, should now stand instead for "them"?

I think I'm slowly beginning to understand ..

Yes - very slowly indeed, as you demonstrate here by your evident omission to notice the inverted commas around the first person plural in what I wrote and which therefore should alone have demonstrated beyond question that I have "succumbed" to no such Grewism and indeed I continue on occasion to refer to such Grewisms scornfully - only you seem in reality to be "slowly beginning to understand" less and less here, as you likewise sadly demonstrate.

[P. G. Tipps]

Yes - very slowly indeed, as you demonstrate here by your evident omission to notice the inverted commas around the first person plural in what I wrote and which therefore should alone have demonstrated beyond question that I have "succumbed" to no such Grewism and indeed I continue on occasion to refer to such Grewisms scornfully - only you seem in reality to be "slowly beginning to understand" less and less here, as you likewise sadly demonstrate.

When we say 'you' do we, in fact, mean "me", ahinton ... ?

Now, whilst we are famously loathe to be unnecessarily pedantic, we cannot but help note the use of double inverted commas when quoting ourselves or others directly.

We would urge ourselves and others to retain the traditional British practice of employing single inverted commas for this purpose and not cravenly 'succumb' to tawdry Americanisms, ahinton ...

[jean]

Now, whilst we are famously loathe to be unnecessarily pedantic, we cannot but help note ...

A bit more pedantry there might not go amiss.

[ahinton]

When we say 'you' do we, in fact, mean "me", ahinton ... ?

Who else could I have meant?

Now, whilst we are famously loathe to be unnecessarily pedantic

Who are "we" and how do you - or might you expect an yone else - to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary pedantry?

we cannot but help note the use of double inverted commas when quoting ourselves or others directly.

The word order of "but" and "help" needs to be changed and, since statements are usually mde by individuals rather than groups of people, I do not quote "yourselves", "ourselves" or indeed any other group of "selves".

We would urge ourselves and others

Whoever you all are, I recommend that you stick to urging yourselves and leave others to their own devices.

to retain the traditional British practice

Remember Busoni on "tradition" - or rather the ways in which it was widely regarded - as a stultifier.

of employing single inverted commas for this purpose and not cravenly 'succumb' to tawdry Americanisms, ahinton ...

My quoting methodology (such as it might be) is a matter of personal choice and not influenced by, still less the result of "succumbing to", the alleged "traditional practices" of Americans, the nature of your reference to whom is uncomfortably close to Grewishness from which it falls short only by virtue of your merciful avoidance of the term "tran-Atlanticisms" to which he would doubtless instead resort.; it seems appropriate that, on the day when the UK national minimum wage increases, I should remind you that I have never employed anyone - not even a comma - perhaps because I've never made sufficient profit to enable me to afford to do so (and I mention profit only because I seem to recall that it was once the thread topic, so I trust that I will be duly excused my solecism in do soing).

[Nick Armstrong]

Not been following this thread (life's too short) but on various cursory looks there seems to be so much twisting and turning about what various participants 'meant' or 'might have meant' or are 'assumed to mean' that it's little wonder it appears to get nowhere at all

The French expression about a 'dialogue between the deaf and the hard of hearing' comes to mind....

[Richard Tarleton]

Didn't it start on the retirement thread with you speculating about cheap haircuts for OAPs, Cali ?

[Flosshilde]

Indeed it did, and I think he should be suitably contrite.

[Nick Armstrong]

Didn't it start on the retirement thread ?

Ah... did it?

you speculating about cheap haircuts for OAPs, Cali ?

Er.... no... but I know what you mean...

Indeed it did, and I think he should be suitably contrite.

Mea maxima culpa!

Talk about 'chaos theory' ...

[Dave2002]

This thread has taken meandering turns of late, including a diversion re apostophes. Hardly any serious response to my post 114 - which was intended seriously.

Re vested interests and governance, these are really quite serious matters. Do not assume that vested interest is only for profit. Indeed, while making decisions it is in fact important that the views of those with vested interests are taken into account. Those who have no vested interests at all will hardly be affected.

Examples: A developer wants to build a factory and houses on some land - and presumably make a profit. (vested interest)
The nearby residents don't want a factory because of noise and disruption - (also vested interest)
The business owner who wants the factory believes it will improve the operation of his business (vested again).

So, it's not vested interests per se which are the problem, but balancing different ones against each other, if possible.
Transparency and fair handedness are also important for the governance and decision making procedures.

If there are no or hardly any vested interests, then there is no motivation for progress, or little motivation to oppose or support any proposed developments.

[P. G. Tipps]

A bit more pedantry there might not go amiss.

No, now it's ams ...