On 13/07/2022 08:04, Java Jive wrote:
> Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final
> right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1,
> 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent
> of Parliament.

And the British Parliament has done this. But for accuracy, our
continued membership only depended on failure to act; continued
membership was the default.

> *ALL* treaties entail loss of sovereignty, but it has never
> been the style of UK government to have a referendum every time a new
> treaty is signed;

That as far as it goes is an accurate statement. However few treaties
require the laws passed by Parliament to be ineffectual if an EU
Directive doesn't align with it. That is a very significant loss of
sovereignty

And if a referendum is promised and then not provided, that Prime
Minister has acted in bad faith. It lost his party the next General
Election.

Jim

On 13/07/2022 08:46, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> The agreement included the ability of the Uk and the EU to make agreed
> changes to it. That was the alteration to Teresa May's BRINO draft that
> Boris achieved.
>
> The EU doesn't really want us as a member state, they just want us as a
> net donor to the EU budget. By digging their heels in, encouraged by the
> remainers in Parliament who are already suggesting increasing the EU
> control over UK trade, the EU think they can make that happen. Thus, the
> clause inserted in the agreement that modifications can be made will
> never be used until the Remainers STFU and the EU give up the idea they
> can once again dictate to Britain.

Pure fantasy - as anyone will know who listened to and watched the EU
negotiators' reaction as their carefully crafted compromises failed to
get through UK parliament three times in a row:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0004vyd
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0004vzb

> There is plenty of evidence for this if you trawl through the news
> archives.

Yet you haven't supplied *ANY*, neither in this post nor your previous
tedious regurgitations of "It's everyone's fault but mine!"
finger-pointings at the rest of the world who you blame as being somehow
responsible for the failure of your own voting decisions.

> At the time Teresa May was getting nowhere in her
> negotiations with the EU

She didn't get nowhere, she got the best deal that could be got under
the circumstances, substantially the same as the one Johnson got, which
he now wishes to break.

> Donald Trump was facing similar EU blocking
> tactics to the agreement he was trying to obtain. He gave them a blunt
> ultimatum, that the EU signed the agreement offered to them or America
> would block all imports from all EU member states until they did sign
> it.  He got agreement in days to a better deal than Britain achieved in
> years.

Yet another fantasy:

https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/united-states_en

"Negotiations

Despite the US being the EU’s largest trading partner, there is no
dedicated free trade agreement between the EU and the US. The
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations were
launched in 2013, but ended without conclusion at the end of 2016. They
were formally closed in 2019 after being considered obsolete.
Nevertheless, transatlantic trade continues to enjoy one of the lowest
average tariffs (under 3%) in the world, governed by World Trade
Organization (WTO) rules.

Background information on the past TTIP negotiations and negotiating
texts [link]

Disputes

Despite the fact that trade disputes tend to grab headlines, the current
disputes only affect around 2% of EU-US trade. The WTO’s dispute
settlement mechanism handles some of these disputes.

More information on the current EU-US trade disputes in the WTO [link]

The EU-US Summit of 2021 made progress towards resolving some of the
longest-standing trade disputes between the two parties. At the summit,
both sides:

Took a decisive step toward resolving the Airbus-Boeing WTO
dispute, by creating a Cooperative Framework for Large Civil Aircraft,
and suspending related US and EU tariffs for five years.
Confirmed their determination to work together to resolve tensions
from the US application of tariffs on imports of steel and aluminium
from the EU under US Section 232. Both sides agreed to work towards
allowing trade to recover from its 2020 lows and ending the WTO disputes."

> Anyway, breaking international law happens from time to time when the
> small print in the agreement becomes a major inconvenience. America tore
> up their agreement with Iran, for instance.  After a bit of fuss in the
> media for a while, it all became yesterdays news. There were no
> consequences to America.

There are consequences to the world of failing to keep Iran in check,
because any problem the US walks away from the Russians are eager to
pick up:

Putin to visit Iran amid reports it could supply drones
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-gas-nuclear-war-putin-latest-b2120933.html#post-714059

It's time to face up to reality: Brexshit hasn't 'worked' because it
could never 'work', in the sense that it always was and still is against
this country's best interests, and no amount of lying about it and
blaming others for its failure will change that. The reason we're in
the shit now is because a bunch of thoroughly corrupt and dishonest
politicians lied to the British public, and enough of the public were as
stupid as you to believe those lies. In other words, we're in the shit
because you and others as stupid as you voted us into the shit; the
blame for the harm to this country's interests done by Brexshit lies
with those shit politicians and those shit voters, with you and others
like you, and it's high time you accepted that responsibility and
stopped trying to blame others for the consequences of your own failure
to cast your vote wisely.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least
>> choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail because
>> that was the only way that they could gain power.
>
> I did NOT say that.

No, indeed you did not, that's the trouble, you tried to claim something
far less believable.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <tal1g7$25jce$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/07/2022 17:48, Norman Wells wrote:
> > On 12/07/2022 17:36, NY wrote:
> >
> >> I can remember the crucial conversion factors: 454 g = 1 lb, 568 fl oz
> >> = 1 pint, 25.4 cm = 1 inch.
> >
> > Well, one out of three anyway.
> >
> 568 fl oz = 1 pint is wrong. It is 568cc (or ml) = 1 pint.
> 568 fl oz is about 3 and 5/9 gallons!

> The other useful near enough conversion is that 1 litre is about 36 fl
> oz and a pint is 20 fl oz and that 20:36 ratio is quite useful for
> converting recipes.

> Jim
That's the UK pint, the US pint is only 16 Fl oz which means a pint of
water weighs 1lb over there.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 13/07/2022 09:23, Robin wrote:
> On 13/07/2022 08:26, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <takrb6$2531o$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> writes
>>
>>
>>> But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a class
>>> of people, not an identifiable single person.  Can I recommend you
>>> read the work of George Boole?
>>>
>> Well, for grammatical purity, there must be a plural of argumentum ad
>> hominem. But what is it? A Google fails to come up with one (other
>> than an obvious plural for 'argumentum').
>>
>> 'Hominem' is the accusitive case of 'homo', so the plural would be
>> 'homines'. However, I have a feeling that the Latin expression might
>> not be grammatically correct. Shouldn't 'ad' not require the ablative
>> case (singular 'homine', plural 'hominibus'? If so, then an ad hominem
>> attack on a specific group of people could be 'argumentum ad homines',
>> or maybe more correctly, 'argumentum ad hominibus'?
>
> I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural.  If we accept "ad
> hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin then
> it has no need of one.  In other words, the phrase "ad hominem argument"
> implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".

It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means what
it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.

The *preposition* 'ad' takes the accusative, so 'ad hominem' is correct
for the singular, the plural being 'ad homines'.

On 13/07/2022 09:29, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 13/07/2022 08:04, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final
>> right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1,
>> 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing
>> assent of Parliament.
>
> And the British Parliament has done this. But for accuracy, our
> continued membership only depended on failure to act; continued
> membership was the default.

Continued membership continued because those in power realised that
membership was in Britain's best interest.

>> *ALL* treaties entail loss of sovereignty, but it has never been the
>> style of UK government to have a referendum every time a new treaty is
>> signed;
>
> That as far as it goes is an accurate statement.  However few treaties
> require the laws passed by Parliament to be ineffectual if an EU
> Directive doesn't align with it.  That is a very significant loss of
> sovereignty

Not any more than joining the United Nations, NATO, or the original
Common Market, none of which were decided by referenda at the time,
although the last was later put to referendum by a successor government.

> And if a referendum is promised and then not provided, that Prime
> Minister has acted in bad faith.  It lost his party the next General
> Election.

It was much more complicated than that; for example, while there was
James Goldsmith's breakaway Referendum Party, then as now, there was a
lot of sleaze in the Tory Party, and John Major held back a report into
it until after the election, and this didn't exactly impress anyone:

https://fullfact.org/online/john-major-proroguing/

"Mr Major was accused by political opponents and the media at the time
of doing this to prevent the “cash-for-questions” report being published
before the upcoming general election. Whether or not that was his reason
for proroguing parliament, it had that effect—the report was eventually
published in July 1997."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_United_Kingdom_general_election

"Disputes within the Conservative government over European Union issues,
and a variety of "sleaze" allegations, had severely affected the
government's popularity. Despite the strong economic recovery and
substantial fall in unemployment in the four years leading up to the
election, the rise in Conservative support was only marginal, with all
of the major opinion polls having shown Labour in a comfortable lead
since late 1992.[10]"

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:22:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural.  If we accept "ad
>> hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin then
>> it has no need of one.  In other words, the phrase "ad hominem argument"
>> implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".
>
>It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means what
>it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.

But we've adopted it (or stolen it) from Latin, so you could say that
it's now English, so it's OK to use it the English way.

The same applies to most of our language, so it's debateable whether
we should regard it as "correct" to use or pronounce words of foreign
origin the way their original speakers at some point in history would
have used them, or to use them our own way. There's plenty of scope
for argument here, though not ad hominem ones I would hope.

Rod.

On 13/07/2022 10:24, Java Jive wrote:
> Continued membership continued because those in power realised that
> membership was in their best interest.

I have corrected that for you. Ex-politicians could get very lucrative
jobs in the EU.

Jim

On 13/07/2022 12:04, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> I have corrected that for you.  Ex-politicians could get very lucrative
> jobs in the EU.

Yet another EU-phobic allegation made without any supporting evidence.

https://blogstest.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/leaving-political-office-in-britain/

"But even after standing down, all goes eerily quiet, leaving the now
former politician possibly only to ruminate about how to channel
cherished beliefs and values. The sudden disappearance of income,
purpose, daily structure, status, social networks – and simply mattering
in the same way – can be highly disorientating. Contrary to public
perception, there is no revolving door from Parliament into the
corporate sector: most former MPs now struggle long and hard to find
employment; council leaders who increasingly (but incautiously) work
full-time in the role even more so."

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 13/07/2022 09:51, Java Jive wrote:
> the consequences of your own failure to cast your vote wisely.

I didn't fail to use my vote wisely. I voted Brexit because I wanted the
Acts passed by the UK Parliament to have more importance to residents of
the UK than EU regulations have. And that is what I now have - apart
from the ECHR problem that is still rumbling along. Liz Truss has
referred to the ECHR's current activities as "mission creep" resulting
in anonymous judges stating what they decide but not why. There are
other countries signed up to using the ECHR who treat the rulings as
advisory, and the UK could do the same.

Jim

On 13/07/2022 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least
>>> choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail because
>>> that was the only way that they could gain power.
>>
>> I did NOT say that.
>
> No, indeed you did not

QED

On 13/07/2022 11:37, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:22:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>> I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural.  If we accept "ad
>>> hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin then
>>> it has no need of one.  In other words, the phrase "ad hominem argument"
>>> implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".
>>
>> It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means what
>> it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.
>
> But we've adopted it (or stolen it) from Latin, so you could say that
> it's now English, so it's OK to use it the English way.

Which, in your opinion, includes the plural. Now all you have to do is
prove it.

On 13/07/2022 12:21, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 13/07/2022 09:51, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> the consequences of your own failure to cast your vote wisely.
>
> I didn't fail to use my vote wisely. I voted Brexit because I wanted the
> Acts passed by the UK Parliament to have more importance to residents of
> the UK than EU regulations have. And that is what I now have

You just don't get it, do you?! NO YOU DON'T! EU regulations will
continue to affect us indefinitely into the future, only now we won't
have any democratic say in them; partly because there is a huge body of
perfectly good legislation created during our fifty years' membership
which it would be pointless to try to repeal on a case by case basis;
partly because we will still need to trade with the EU, and therefore
will have to remain in the same safe and level playing field previously
mentioned in order to avoid adverse tariffs; partly because the EU,
being one of the largest world trading blocks, sets the normative
standards for health and safety standards of produce and goods.

Etc, etc.

The idea that, now we're no longer part of the EU, suddenly the EU
becomes irrelevant and everything we've ever wanted is possible - cue
the soft focus lens and slo-mo of a beautiful woman on a summer's
evening - is just a continuation of the original lies that we were
given as reasons for leaving.

The countries of the EU are our nearest neighbours, and we do about 50%
of our trade with them. We need them much more than they need us, and
what they do they will always affect this country.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 13/07/2022 12:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 13/07/2022 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least
>>>> choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail because
>>>> that was the only way that they could gain power.
>>>
>>> I did NOT say that.
>>
>> No, indeed you did not
>
> QED

QED that you stated an absurd and impossible conspiracy theory, rather
than one that such as the above that at least had some plausibility to
it; no-one is surprised that you chose the impossible one.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 13/07/2022 10:22, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 13/07/2022 09:23, Robin wrote:
>> On 13/07/2022 08:26, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> In message <takrb6$2531o$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
>>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> writes
>>>
>>>
>>>> But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a
>>>> class of people, not an identifiable single person.  Can I recommend
>>>> you read the work of George Boole?
>>>>
>>> Well, for grammatical purity, there must be a plural of argumentum ad
>>> hominem. But what is it? A Google fails to come up with one (other
>>> than an obvious plural for 'argumentum').
>>>
>>> 'Hominem' is the accusitive case of 'homo', so the plural would be
>>> 'homines'. However, I have a feeling that the Latin expression might
>>> not be grammatically correct. Shouldn't 'ad' not require the ablative
>>> case (singular 'homine', plural 'hominibus'? If so, then an ad
>>> hominem attack on a specific group of people could be 'argumentum ad
>>> homines', or maybe more correctly, 'argumentum ad hominibus'?
>>
>> I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural.  If we accept
>> "ad hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin
>> then it has no need of one.  In other words, the phrase "ad hominem
>> argument" implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".
>
> It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin.  It therefore means what
> it says in Latin.  And it's therefore singular.

OTOH for "ad hominem" the OED gives "Origin: A borrowing from Latin."
The use of "borrow" in that sense is well-established.

And I didn't think English adjectives and adverbs had plural forms
(excluding of course adjectival nouns).

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 13/07/2022 11:37, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:22:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural.  If we accept "ad
>>>> hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin then
>>>> it has no need of one.  In other words, the phrase "ad hominem argument"
>>>> implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".
>>>
>>> It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means what
>>> it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.
>>
>> But we've adopted it (or stolen it) from Latin, so you could say that
>> it's now English, so it's OK to use it the English way.
>
>Which, in your opinion, includes the plural. Now all you have to do is
>prove it.

Why?

If a word is generally understood to mean something, then I can just
use it whenever that's what I want to say, can't I?

Rod.

On 13/07/2022 13:52, Robin wrote:
> On 13/07/2022 10:22, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 13/07/2022 09:23, Robin wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2022 08:26, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> In message <takrb6$2531o$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
>>>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a
>>>>> class of people, not an identifiable single person.  Can I
>>>>> recommend you read the work of George Boole?
>>>>>
>>>> Well, for grammatical purity, there must be a plural of argumentum
>>>> ad hominem. But what is it? A Google fails to come up with one
>>>> (other than an obvious plural for 'argumentum').
>>>>
>>>> 'Hominem' is the accusitive case of 'homo', so the plural would be
>>>> 'homines'. However, I have a feeling that the Latin expression might
>>>> not be grammatically correct. Shouldn't 'ad' not require the
>>>> ablative case (singular 'homine', plural 'hominibus'? If so, then an
>>>> ad hominem attack on a specific group of people could be 'argumentum
>>>> ad homines', or maybe more correctly, 'argumentum ad hominibus'?
>>>
>>> I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural.  If we accept
>>> "ad hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from
>>> Latin then it has no need of one.  In other words, the phrase "ad
>>> hominem argument" implies a single person no more than "schoolboy
>>> argument".
>>
>> It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin.  It therefore means
>> what it says in Latin.  And it's therefore singular.
>
> OTOH for "ad hominem" the OED gives "Origin: A borrowing from Latin."
> The use of "borrow" in that sense is well-established.

And that very same dictionary defines the term as:

'​directed against a person’s character rather than their argument'.

'A person'. Singular.

On 13/07/2022 14:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 13/07/2022 11:37, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:22:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural.  If we accept "ad
>>>>> hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin then
>>>>> it has no need of one.  In other words, the phrase "ad hominem argument"
>>>>> implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".
>>>>
>>>> It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means what
>>>> it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.
>>>
>>> But we've adopted it (or stolen it) from Latin, so you could say that
>>> it's now English, so it's OK to use it the English way.
>>
>> Which, in your opinion, includes the plural. Now all you have to do is
>> prove it.
>
> Why?
>
> If a word is generally understood to mean something, then I can just
> use it whenever that's what I want to say, can't I?

All you have to do now is establish that your initial condition is true.

Otherwise, you're in Humpty Dumpty territory.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 14:39:52 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 13/07/2022 14:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/07/2022 11:37, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 10:22:14 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural.  If we accept "ad
>>>>>> hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from Latin then
>>>>>> it has no need of one.  In other words, the phrase "ad hominem argument"
>>>>>> implies a single person no more than "schoolboy argument".
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin. It therefore means what
>>>>> it says in Latin. And it's therefore singular.
>>>>
>>>> But we've adopted it (or stolen it) from Latin, so you could say that
>>>> it's now English, so it's OK to use it the English way.
>>>
>>> Which, in your opinion, includes the plural. Now all you have to do is
>>> prove it.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> If a word is generally understood to mean something, then I can just
>> use it whenever that's what I want to say, can't I?
>
>All you have to do now is establish that your initial condition is true.
>
>Otherwise, you're in Humpty Dumpty territory.

Not quite Humpty Dumpty. I don't just use words to mean what *I* want.
I try to use words with established meanings that are understood by
other people (and/or the OED) otherwise they wouldn't be much use.

Rod.

On 13/07/2022 14:28, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 13/07/2022 13:52, Robin wrote:
>> On 13/07/2022 10:22, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2022 09:23, Robin wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2022 08:26, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>> In message <takrb6$2531o$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
>>>>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But ad hominems are against a specific person. I commented on a
>>>>>> class of people, not an identifiable single person.  Can I
>>>>>> recommend you read the work of George Boole?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, for grammatical purity, there must be a plural of argumentum
>>>>> ad hominem. But what is it? A Google fails to come up with one
>>>>> (other than an obvious plural for 'argumentum').
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Hominem' is the accusitive case of 'homo', so the plural would be
>>>>> 'homines'. However, I have a feeling that the Latin expression
>>>>> might not be grammatically correct. Shouldn't 'ad' not require the
>>>>> ablative case (singular 'homine', plural 'hominibus'? If so, then
>>>>> an ad hominem attack on a specific group of people could be
>>>>> 'argumentum ad homines', or maybe more correctly, 'argumentum ad
>>>>> hominibus'?
>>>>
>>>> I am not persuaded grammatical purity needs a plural.  If we accept
>>>> "ad hominem" as an English adjective (or adverb) "borrowed" from
>>>> Latin then it has no need of one.  In other words, the phrase "ad
>>>> hominem argument" implies a single person no more than "schoolboy
>>>> argument".
>>>
>>> It's not 'borrowed from' Latin but *is* Latin.  It therefore means
>>> what it says in Latin.  And it's therefore singular.
>>
>> OTOH for "ad hominem" the OED gives "Origin: A borrowing from Latin."
>> The use of "borrow" in that sense is well-established.

> And that very same dictionary defines the term as:
>
> '​directed against a person’s character rather than their argument'.
>
> 'A person'.  Singular.
>
>

I think you are making too much of that given the way the OED proceeds
on the basis that the singular includes the plural and vice versa unless
the context requires otherwise. E.g. it defines:

" a. Of a person: slow to learn or understand; lacking intelligence or
perceptiveness; acting without common sense or good judgement."

rather than explicitly including "a person or persons".

Similarly it has

" b. Of persons: Very distinguished or celebrated; esp. distinguished by
talent and cleverness; having showy good qualities."

rather than "Of a person or persons".

And don't ask me why one goes one way and t'other t'other.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 13/07/2022 12:58, Java Jive wrote:

> The idea that, now we're no longer part of the EU, suddenly the EU
> becomes irrelevant and everything we've ever wanted is possible

Another thing I didn't say.
Your imagination is working overtime.

Jim

On 13/07/2022 13:01, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/07/2022 12:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 13/07/2022 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least
>>>>> choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail
>>>>> because that was the only way that they could gain power.
>>>>
>>>> I did NOT say that.
>>>
>>> No, indeed you did not
>>
>> QED
>
> QED that you stated an absurd and impossible conspiracy theory, rather
> than one that such as the above that at least had some plausibility to
> it; no-one is surprised that you chose the impossible one.
>
You studied maths (or claim to have done) so why do you not recognise
QED as being the end of a process and not the start of a new one?

That is a rhetorical question. But you will of course not treat it as
such because you have always been obsessive about having the last word.

Jim

On 13/07/2022 21:07, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 13/07/2022 12:58, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> The idea that, now we're no longer part of the EU, suddenly the EU
>> becomes irrelevant and everything we've ever wanted is possible
>
> Another thing I didn't say.
> Your imagination is working overtime.

LOL! More hypocrisy! At least I'm not inventing paranoid political
fantasies and insisting that they're real, as you are.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 13/07/2022 21:14, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 13/07/2022 13:01, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 13/07/2022 12:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2022 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least
>>>>>> choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail
>>>>>> because that was the only way that they could gain power.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did NOT say that.
>>>>
>>>> No, indeed you did not
>>>
>>> QED
>>
>> QED that you stated an absurd and impossible conspiracy theory, rather
>> than one that such as the above that at least had some plausibility to
>> it; no-one is surprised that you chose the impossible one.
>>
> You studied maths (or claim to have done) so why do you not recognise
> QED as being the end of a process and not the start of a new one?

Because you weren't using it correctly, merely by appending QED trying
to pretend that you'd won some sort of argument, whereas in fact you
hadn't, so I pointed this out.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 14/07/2022 00:07, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/07/2022 21:14, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 13/07/2022 13:01, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2022 12:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2022 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 13/07/2022 09:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/07/2022 07:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you must dabble in these absurd conspiracy theories, at least
>>>>>>> choose a more plausible one, that Leavers wanted May to fail
>>>>>>> because that was the only way that they could gain power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did NOT say that.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, indeed you did not
>>>>
>>>> QED
>>>
>>> QED that you stated an absurd and impossible conspiracy theory,
>>> rather than one that such as the above that at least had some
>>> plausibility to it; no-one is surprised that you chose the impossible
>>> one.
>>>
>> You studied maths (or claim to have done) so why do you not recognise
>> QED as being the end of a process and not the start of a new one?
>
> Because you weren't using it correctly, merely by appending QED trying
> to pretend that you'd won some sort of argument, whereas in fact you
> hadn't, so I pointed this out.
>
<quote>
>>>>>> I did NOT say that.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, indeed you did not
>>>>
>>>> QED
<end quote>

You agreed with me, so that *is* the correct use.