[MR] Re: Queen's Arms

[Duarte Negrin de los Angeles y Blanco]

On Saturday 30 March 2002 08:58 am, Logan wrote:
>  you
> saying "well it was bob that said it" does not provide verifiable fact,
> only hearsay. 

Actually, no. If she is reporting something she herself heard, it isn't 
hearsay. It is direct testimony. Now, if YOU say that she overheard it, THAT 
would be hearsay.

>  i dont think that its in your character to lie so i am
> willing to believe that you heard what you report.  but it is still not
> verifiable other than by your word and perhaps others.

It's called testimony, and it the most common form of verification. By 
calling for verification "other than by your word and perhaps others
", you ARE calling them liars.  Fortunately, we know that wasn't your intent.

> a woman being degraded by childish prattle taking a piece of heraldry and
> referring to it as "her most private body part" ( i assume somehow that the
> "v" word is gaucherie) seems a bit silly.  are we suggesting that the
> antics of juvenile idiots somehow dictates what the rest of us do?

Since the "antics of juvenile idiots" were actually the act of the King 
during Curia, and he does indeed "dictate what the rest of us do", then yes, 
I'd say that's an accurate summation.

> removing the ermine in the first place all that was accomplished was giving
> weight and justification to those stupid little comments.  and, of course,
> it simply gave way to more stupid comments.  or perhaps you havent heard
> the current joke?

Logan, if this remark were made in a business or government setting, it would 
be grounds for a lawsuit. I count us fortunate that that hasn't happened. And 
"tradition" or no, to change it back opens us up to just such a suit. No one 
could plead ignorance of the problem any more.  Going back would be akin to 
putting up a swimsuit calendar over the Queen's head AFTER it had already 
been taken down for cause. 

Personally, I like the idea of new arms that don't include the clam at all.