Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 27: Line 27:  
:::What I'm saying is that it seems that the Queen has the ability to veto (or "not sign" or whatever you call it in the UK). Of course it would be unprecedented, but I think someone with more guts would do it. We could not the precedent of not vetoing legislation along with that paragraph, explaining why she did not veto the bills. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 
:::What I'm saying is that it seems that the Queen has the ability to veto (or "not sign" or whatever you call it in the UK). Of course it would be unprecedented, but I think someone with more guts would do it. We could not the precedent of not vetoing legislation along with that paragraph, explaining why she did not veto the bills. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 
::::I'm not really interested in arguing over it; the addition claiming that the Queen is a pro-abortion liberal is so silly that any educated reader will see it for what it is. Far be it for me, a mere history teacher, to override the fallacious opinions of ''Lord of the Rings'' fans' edits (between their warning of tomorrow's nuclear attack on New York City.) I believe your nemesis Wikipedia suffers similar problems, saying: "For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War—and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge—get all pi**y when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment." [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 17:14, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 
::::I'm not really interested in arguing over it; the addition claiming that the Queen is a pro-abortion liberal is so silly that any educated reader will see it for what it is. Far be it for me, a mere history teacher, to override the fallacious opinions of ''Lord of the Rings'' fans' edits (between their warning of tomorrow's nuclear attack on New York City.) I believe your nemesis Wikipedia suffers similar problems, saying: "For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War—and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge—get all pi**y when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment." [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 17:14, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::What do you think about this: we keep the fact that the Queen has signed these pieces of legislation, but we include the fact that there is a precedent not to interfere with Parliament, regardless of what they pass? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:20, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, move, oversight, protect, rollback, Administrators
51,035

edits

Navigation menu