I also vote PER on this proposal.

At some point in the future - for discussion elsewhere, elsewhen - perhaps we could change twenty-one to eighteen? And also fix the wording of change-of-address inserting "without notification to Talossa" (or something like that).

If there is any meeting there, then all French-speaking Talossans should be present!  Obviously, there will be some expenses... (New Zealand to Paris... hmmm)
:)

As far as I know - and. of course, things may have changed since I last looked - Talossan Law refers back to Wisconsin law only in a very few places, and is NOT (in general) dependant upon that law.  Wisconsin law is *not* (explicity) the background for Talossan Law, except in those few cases. I did point out that two 18-year old same-gender Talossan intimate friends having a glass of wine on the island of Cezembre were breaking lots of Wisconsin laws - but no French laws.  I would *strongly* suggest that *all* references to the laws of all non-Talossan states be removed from our Talossan Laws. And, moreover, I would suggest that Talossan Law should concern itself only with (a) matters concerning personal freedom and rights, and (b) matters relating to internationally and universally recognised aspects of morality, and (c ) matters concerning Talossa directly.
This suggestion would mean that, for example, Talossa should *not* concern itself with who can marry whom, or the voltage and frequency of electricity supply, or way in which voting must be performed in any non-Talossa state. But it *would* be concerned with, for example, (Talossan) theft, and (all) murder, and (all) actions of impinging upon liberty or right-to-respond, and (Talossan) dishonesty and improper behaviour.
Except for the International Declaration of Human Rights, Talossa need not, and *must not* depend upon the laws of any other state.

If it is not explicitly illegal, then it is legal.  If there is a (real, not imaginary) doubt then we conduct no official business, but "merely" get to know each other better.

Yes - it seems like a good idea.... though we might end up having more title than name to our signature!  ;)

Gentlemen, let us not shout.

Einstein had numerous extra-marital sexual relationships. Isaac Newton was a jealous liar. Beethoven was unspeakably rude. None of those facts have any relevance to Relativity or Gravity or The Ninth Symphony. When we discuss the equations of General Relativity the moral status of their first proponent is utterly irrelevant, and scientists know this.

Similarly with laws. The persons suggesting those laws, the other actions of those persons, their rudeness or politeness or lust or sloth are in no way relevant: all that is relevant is the wording of the laws themselves. Even the intent of those laws is irrelevant - unless that intent is explicitly mentioned in those (or other) laws as part of the law itself, and not its preamble.

Debate like "You did this" "No I didn't - you got in the way" "You don't know what you're talking about" "Oh yeah? Look at such-and-such - you're incompetent" "Yah, boo, sucks" "I'm not playing your game"....  This, fellow citizens, is not worthy of us.

I would like to make the following suggestion. When we discuss past or future legislation let us be neutral - alway neutral - about who framed those laws. Let us not, in any way, comment upon those persons - even more especially if they are party to the discussion itself.  Let us remove personality from our formal discussions. Let us not say, for example, "you got this wrong in the past - you fool!", but rather "I believe that we should, in this instance, take such-and-such an action".

Well-framed laws are rather dull reading - intentionally so. Have you ever read, in full, one of those long, long software licence agreements? These do not say "if you do such-and-such you are evil and will be tortured in Hell for eternity", rather they say "such-and-such is part of this agreement between us: if this is breached then thus-and-thus will be instigated, without prejudice, governed by the laws of <national state> within whose area this contract shall be deemed to be issued"  - much more dull, but much more precise. And well-framed laws are rather dull to write, too - and need to be phrased with the same kind of precision as a computer program. (I have often thought that Legal Latin and Legislative English were precursors to Cobol, Java and HTML!).

Good parliamentary debate (certainly here, in the UK) consists of stating what the consequence of this or that clause might be, or has been, and whether this or that is consistent with such-and-such. Yes, we do, in our "Mother of Parliaments" shout at each other - but we are explicitly forbidden to make personal comments about other members of the legislature. You can say "X is mistaken about Y", but you can not say "X is lying" (and especially not "you are lying") - even though that might be what you are thinking.

I am, as I think I have said before, a scientist, and I try to use scientific reasoning at all times - tempered with an unswerving acceptance of Human Rights and Justice (both of which stand above our laws - and all other laws, too). I would urge the rest of us to do likewise.

And let us remember that many words are not always useful words. What is truly worth saying can be said succinctly.

My answer to the question posed by this thread is ..

NO an Absent Ruler is not a Ruler

Let us deal with it, let us act...
...let us act soon.

John - you are a nice guy. Your Majesty, in your office you are incompetent.
.

I would love to have the opportunity of visiting my home province! Although I am very, very remis in not speaking our language, I do speak French - which we will need in order to get a coffee and croissant at the beach cafe. Keep me informed, and I look forward to waving my walking stick at the puny barriers that try to limit our nation.  ;)

My votes for August 2020 Election:

Cosa: FREEDEMS

54RZ16 Per
54RZ22 Per
54RZ23 Per
54RZ25 Per
54EZ28 Per

Ian Tamoran for Senats Cezembre

I have verified that I *did* send a message of application five days ago. I can display a verifying screenshot if required.

There was a suggestion (by me), elsewhere and elsewhen, about our using a gender-neutral escutcheon in our armorial bearings.
It was a suggestion that, alas, went down like a lead balloon.

Perhaps I should try to revive it... <grin>

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on April 28, 2020, 03:02:11 AM
While I'm always happy to welcome back someone who renounced, I also don't think it would be unfair to get a citizenship bonus for not doing the renouncing and coming back routine.

I'm awfully confused about the meaning of this triple negative!... don't think... unfair... not doing.... ??? ???

I am certainly interested (I have, heaven help us!, a master's degree in mathematic), and I can be of help here - but I'm a lousy teacher.

Assuming that we want to look at interesting mathematics (rather than just currently useful mathematics), then the classes of numbers are great fun - counting numbers, integers, rational, real, algebraic, transcendental, complex, etc. And, no, there is not just one sentence to be said about each of them.

I'm still around - and though I am stepping down from official business, I view the Advancement of Knowledge as being cultural business, and (insofar as possible) I would like to continue working in this Royal Society. Prospective members should PM me, either to my Talossan mailbox or (faster) to my external mailbox of idkk@idkk.com

Friday is better for me - though Saturday is OK too (I know we won't have any guests!). Please let me (us?) know how to connect to the meeting - and what other software we need.