Poor disciplinary C.H. staff

[Foureyes]

Ladies and Gentlemen,
It appears to me that some of the messages above are becoming increasingly - and unnecessarily - political. I would draw the Moderator's attention to the post by JR on 4 Jan 2017, which I personally find offensive. Perhaps the Moderator could have a quiet word with the author of that post?
I also find the post concerning Mr N. Clegg over-political and nothing whatsoever to do with the topic 'Poor disciplinary C.H. staff.' I could write a ten-page essay on Mr Clegg's shortcomings, but this is not the place to do so.
We are all entitled to our own political views and to express them, forcibly, if necessary, but I suggest that this is not the right place to do so.
David

[Foureyes]

Post by Foureyes » Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:27 am
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It appears to me that some of the messages above are becoming increasingly - and unnecessarily - political. I would draw the Moderator's attention to the post by JR on 4 Jan 2017, which I personally find offensive. Perhaps the Moderator could have a quiet word with the author of that post?
I also find the post concerning Mr N. Clegg over-political and nothing whatsoever to do with the topic 'Poor disciplinary C.H. staff.' I could write a ten-page essay on Mr Clegg's shortcomings, but this is not the place to do so.
We are all entitled to our own political views and to express them, forcibly, if necessary, but I suggest that this is not the right place to do so.
David

[J.R.]

As I was the author of the said post, so maybe I should point out that I AM a moderator on this site.

I fail to see how it is offensive. It is a point of view of mine regarding a former Prime Minister who only had the interest of the top 5% of this country.

There is nothing offensive or abusive in it.

If you feel that strongly, David, I suggest you contact the Forum Administrator direct.

J.R.

[Foureyes]

"If you feel that strongly, David, I suggest you contact the Forum Administrator direct."
Quis custodat custodies?
Done.

[J.R.]

I had to look it up having only done Latin for just one term, then made sure that that was it ! Dead language IMHO.

I look forward to hearing from Julian in due course.

[rockfreak]

Why should Four Eyes find anything about JR's post of 4 January offensive? It's all a matter of record in regard of Thatcher and her policies. It all happened. OK, perhaps we need to move this discussion onto the Politics thread (which was my gift to the site originally). I do find Four Eyes' Latin
quote amusing. In his books on Boarding School Survivor syndrome Nick Duffell would have described Four Eyes as the typical public school pedant bully - loftily dropping in a Latin quote knowing full well that not everyone knows Latin (like me) and so using one-upmanship to make his point. And yet of course he doesn't make his point. He fails to counter argue John's point about Thatcher, refusing to offer any evidence for his own case and resorting instead to grandiosity and pretentiousness, something that Nick Duffell would say the public schools are very good at teaching. Anyway, yes, off to the Politics site if we wish to continue this theme.

[Avon]

I'm with JR. I also need to revisit my understanding of the word offensive it would seem?

Personally, I found Thatcher awfully offensive, particularly after the 'no such thing as society' quote.

I find it more offensive when people try to stifle the opinions of others with faux-offence.

Hope this helps, etc.

[LongGone]

I will side with Foureyes. I joined this site to read about aspects of CH, not political diatribes from the same few people hijacking threads. I suggest the moderators should be far more vigilant on keeping threads on topic.

[postwarblue]

This thread is NOT about Thatcher and dragging her in was divisive, particularly considering the vast good she did for the world in emboldening Reagan to fry the Soviet Communist machine in technology and in breaking Scargill.

If JR can post anti-Thatcher jibes (which I also find offensive) then there is a case for posting a response.

As a moderator JR should have shown more self-discipline IMHO.

[michael scuffil]

"If you feel that strongly, David, I suggest you contact the Forum Administrator direct."
Quis custodat custodies?
Done.

Oh dear. Double detention, I think. Or five Hail Marys and a cold shower.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

True, there does seem to be a first conjugation verb custodo, with 3rd person sing. present 'custodat', but the quote is from Juvenal, who used the fourth conjugation 'custodio', of which 'custodiet' is the 3rd pers. sing. future. And the noun is 'custos', acc. plural 'custodes'.

'Who will moderate the moderators themselves?'

[Foureyes]

Michael Scuffil.
Guilty as charged, m'lud. I should have been more careful with my grammar. Hail Mary's completed, as instructed. but I shall have to postpone the cold shower unti later, as I am completely gutted by 'flu and the shock of cold water would finish me off completely. Incidentally, I like your last line - a very satisfactory and appropriate translation.
David

[michael scuffil]

David:

In view of the mea culpa: te absolvo.

[postwarblue]

What's Latin? Under Flecker it was only started in Classical deps, up to then ABC forms did Greek instead (D & E did machine drawing). Which I think was at the root of AH Buck's annoyance with Flecker as AHB wanted to teach Latin.

[J.R.]

I repeat from earlier.

Why was Latin ever bothered to be taught ?

By the 60's, it was a dead language. only used by GP's on prescriptions, botanists and medical people.

I won't go further for risk of upsetting the classicists amongst us.

[Katharine]

Latin was taught as until the 60s either Latin or Greek O level was necessary to enter Oxford or Cambridge. I was in the first year to go to Oxford (1966) where an ancient language was not compulsory for people with Maths or Science A levels, however two foreign languages were still necessary, but as a concession both could be modern languages.

If Horsham was anything like Hertford, all the A stream started learning Latin, as it was not known who might be applying to Oxbridge 6 or 7 years later.