[blml] Fowl (was foul) de Lawbook [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Grattan Endicott]

from Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*****************************
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:46 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Foul de Lawbook (was Board) 
[SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


Richard Hills:

>No offence was taken guys; you may have missed the 
> smiley :-) at the end of my last posting, which posting 
> was partly an exercise in self-deprecating humour.  (In 
> my opinion, such poking fun at yourself is the best form 
> of humour.)
>
+=+ Don't think twice about it.  Kojak himself is one 
of our most eminent gurus - one of the alternative meanings 
of which is 'a popular expert' - and though we don't often 
admit it we are frequently poking fun at ourselves, be it 
inadvertently.  +=+
----------   \x/   -------------------------------------
>However, Kojak has raised an interesting "forest and trees" 
>point which I believe is worthy of further debate on this list.
------------   \x/   ----------------------------------

>"Men at some times are master of their fates:
>The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our directors' rulings,
>But in ourselves, since they are underlings."

> The only times when the "forest" / "intrinsic spirit of the 
>laws" can be relevant are at those times when the WBF 
>LC is conducting its decennial revision of what the 
>Lawbook actually says.  If the 2008 Lawbook does not
> say what the WBF LC intends it to say, then beware 
>the ides of March.

+=+ I am currently researching the hides of March,
the ones in unfrequented remote bird sanctuaries where 
the distant echoes of  'do they really mean that?'  or 
'what do they really mean?' will not disturb the watchers.
I have just booked my flights to and, importantly, from
Shanghai where the confection is to be served to the 
overlords.
                                 ~ G ~   +=+