It has been overshadowed in the last few days by the passing of a great man. The Duke is rightly to be remembered and his life celebrated for all the good he has done and in the idiosyncrasies that he displayed. His death reminds us that life does not remain the same; time moves on; until now in recent days, and I suppose that it shall return, there had been much talk in these parts about what the new normal will look like. I don’t know what you hear elsewhere, but what we hear doesn’t sound to me very much unlike the old.
Holidays in the sun is good for vitamin D deficient sun lovers unless they also have a melanin deficiency in which case extra strong skin cream is required. Racing to return to the gym, which provides bodily exercise for those who do not have to labour hard in the acre of land that the government allows them on which to grow maize and other crops. Eating out and visits to the cinema, theatre, opera, shows, concerts, dance halls, gigs (is that orthographically correct, or should it be gigues?) and the like are, well, without the need for justification of any sort, a necessary part of the new normal. Let us eat drink and be merry¹, seems to be the message.
Are we any different? There has been much celebrated over the past year of dedication, selfless giving, service, but little (but not nothing) has been said about the cleaner who was no longer needed because her employer now WFH had recovered two hours a day not being required to travel, or the employer who simply told his staff not to bother to return the next day, they would not be paid. The poor still had mouths to feed and bills to pay.
Do not think I am about to suggest that wealth is bad, Abraham² did not berate the rich man for enjoying the things that he enjoyed in this life but for failing to believe in the Son of Man. He was not asked to give half his wealth to Lazarus who sat at his gate, but rather to remember justice, righteousness and compassion. It was this that he forgot.
In the new normal, will we simply revert to type, and behave as we always have done? Noah³ left a world that was filled with violence to sail into a new world. What sort of violence? Physical, economic, emotional, therapeutic? Did Noah hope for better in the new world into which through the flood he had sailed? But his own behaviour and that of his sons soon showed that the world that they had left behind had come with them. The new world was no better. We today seek to deal with violence, but the very need to do so simply exposes our shame that it continues to exist.
The last year is no cure for our condition; it has shown many good things about the image of God in which we are made, but it has also exposed that our condition is unchanged.
There is but one cure, the man, who himself suffered violence at the hands of his own people, is our cure. Jesus now sits at the right hand of God⁴ and will come again to take his people to a world which really shall be new and different than this one, where there shall be no violence, no hurt, no harm. That will be the new normal; it will be an extraordinary, previously unimagined normal⁵, but it is the only new normal for which it is worth waiting.
At great risk of being misunderstood, it is very clear that the age of chivalry is over. The most senior of the other two should have given up his seat for the lady. Perhaps the difficulty they had was that the first one to have stood would have been claiming precedence over the other 😉
The uncovering of an ancient gold mask in China has caused a few ripples on Weibo, so Coco thought he would join in the activity. However as he does not have a Weibo account, and probably would no longer have one after this post anyway so it makes little difference, the post had to be made elsewhere, and out of respect for anyone who may read this and wishes to retain their own Weibo account, placed his images else where.
For the triptych ‘Behind every smiling face’ please visit Acklam Hall and follow the link to the Chinese mask. You may also follow the other links (not all appear as such), but beware lest you see what you should not see.
It seemed to be an ordinary sort of day, the kind of day when the sun shines, the bees buzz and the lilac blossom falls gently on the ground. Passing a house where several cats make their home, the slave came out angrily spraying a can of noxious vapours at anything that moved. It seemed that the cats had introduced some unwanted guests into their home and the slave was determined to remove them.
Coco watched in astonishment as three free fleas fled.
Further to the mysteries of a past day, Coco read* today ‘that a great and worthy twentieth century’ Irish poet ‘declined to produce a translation of’ Beowulf ‘because it was considered that someone of a different enthnicity, genre and mother tongue’, not to mention culture, to the Old English author ‘could not accurately reflect and interpret’ this great poetry.
For the real story of Beowulf he refers you to Professor Heather O’Donoghue, here and to her book…
Coco is now on the search for an original ancient Greek to labour afresh in the translation of the poetry of [place here the name of your favourite ancient Greek author] but in the words of one Latin translator slightly paraphrased: Don’t worry too much about your pronunciation there are no Romans about today to correct you, and in the Bowdlerised words of a Renaissance writer: My attempt for Greek’s labour to find is vain, for I who myself have deceivèd shall fail.
* The catastrophic and apostrophic additions and amendment in Coco’s first paragraph have been added for clarity.
The heightening of ‘the debate in the Netherlands over the ethics of translation’ probably suggests that the Dutch are expected to read every other language in the original tongue. Given their outstanding ability to speak English, as no true born Englishman can, Coco has no doubt that that every true born Dutchman will rise to the challenge to drive metaphorically the illiterati into the abyss of darkness otherwise known as the North Sea, as they consume with an avarice insatiable for other tongues unknown since the day of Babel.
I thought I would say something really important. After listening to yet another performance of Götterdämmerung, and I hasten to add lest already I have given the wrong impression, that it was a very good performance apart from the ‘Bravo’ hurled out at the end. The voice, by the way, which penetrated the air was very similar to that which resounded at a different, and much reduced, performance in the promenade concerts many years ago. It seemed that the utterer of that earlier bravo may have listened to the rebukes of his peers at the quite untimeliness of the oral intrusion of his voice on the earlier occasion, ah, but me! I have been distracted and consequently left unfinished, an error which my better grammaticastic friends will not let me forget, a sentence which now lacks both a subject and a verb. Let me start again with what I really intended to say. Just for the sake of distraction: Did you notice the importance of the second comma in this paragraph?
Whilst listening, or perhaps more accurately, watching and listening to an audio visual presentation I realised why I do so much dislike the presence of music in the background. It was that that prompted me to think of yet another performance the closing moments, well only about ten minutes worth actually, of the same opera. I remember reading many years ago of one man, Bruckner his name, who on going to the performances of Wagner’s operas only went for the background music. His biographer concluded that had Anton ever opened his eyes during a performance he would have never entered the theatre again. I understand that, I have a similar view, as good as the story may be in itself – and perhaps a few of them are but most can be summed up in three words two of which are power and money and the third is the only one needed for opera buffa – the story is only a hook on which to hang even better music, so when going to the opera, I take quite a similar view to Anton. Audio visual performances consist of two parts, audio and visual. Now whilst the audio part can be split into many tracks, it behoves the engineer to ensure that they produce a homogenous, appropriate and pleasing mixture. I need to return to the point.
Perhaps some, or even many of you, have been to a performance of St Anthony’s chorale, in one of its many forms, by a junior school orchestra. If so you will know exactly what perfect fifths should not sound like. If you have never been to such a performance, may I suggest you keep your ears open for one, or indeed any junior school orchestra concert for despite the impurity of the fifths, such orchestras are well worth the listening for the quality of the musicianship will still be appreciated and from which the real music shine, perhaps better sound. Technique can be learned and improved even by the long ears of Mozartian disdain, musicianship is much harder to obtain.
So, to the point, I remembered during this other audio visual presentation listening to a world leader speaking of the overcoming of the will, behind which Götterdämmerung was being played. Whether it was a particularly good performance is neither here nor there, Wagner is almost at his best in this work and the music is captivating even when played badly, more so than St Anthony’s. It was most interesting. It was really quite a clever marketing device, but there was a canny media director managing the public face of the government as one might expect. The music is quite engaging, which is perhaps somewhat of an understatement, but also quite provocative. The speech is also. What struck me though was that though I had been impressed I had completely missed what had been said. For all I knew it might have been a description of antics of the teddy bears at their picnic except that a few phrases did stand out such as ‘They must be careful’, which of course would be true if you are on a picnic playing near water and ‘Don’t play with trifles’, which again surely must be a warning both to those who would fill their bellies before they came to the picnic and to those who simply wanted a custard pie fight, or had already eaten far too much, like most ten year old boys at a picnic, and who really did want to eat the trifle but simply could not manage to swallow another spoonful. The use of background music had this rather unfortunate effect of distracting you from what is actually being said, which if you had heard, rather like Anton you would not want to ever hear again.
It was finding myself distracted by some very well performed, unlike the St Anthony’s, but completely inane, unlike the St Anthony’s, trivia to which my ears had become attuned and which as a consequence caused them not to listen to the words which then themselves became the background, it was that that reminded me of the matter of the overcoming of the will, and why background music is, well abhorrent. In some circumstances of course the use of this phenomena is completely intentional. If you listen to ‘Einstein on the Beach’ then you may realise after a time, if you ever thought that this was in some way akin to opera or rap where the words do have meaning, and so tried to listen to the words being spoken, despite the constant shifting of the repetitive patterns in Glass’s music, that the words are really quite inconsequential and a reading of ‘The Hunting of the Snark’ would have sufficed. We have in Einstein what is a wonderful inversion of the idea of background music, which gives the impression that the music is there simply to provide a foil for the words. The reality is quite the opposite. If you are a lover of Glass then you may, feel free to, disagree with my conclusion, I shall not be offended nor inclined to think otherwise for reasons which I have already set out.
In the audio visual presentation which is the subject of this report, it was the words that mattered, the music was merely incidental, and not incidental take note. Much incidental music is quite consequential as Midsummer Night’s Dream or the Peer Gynt suite, which are worthy works in their own right. The presence of the merely incidental sounds here, was both unnecessary and distracting. Now, it is as true that if one of the auditors was distracted then it must be the case that others were too, as it is that if in class you have a question someone else shall too, and therefore you need to speak out because the other person is too shy to do so. But it has become the ‘norm’, would that it were ‘Norn’ instead, to underlie many oral presentations with this kind of thing. Even news reports will be adulterated by background noise. I wonder whether the producers ask themselves whether the music that has been chosen for them is appropriate for that report. Prokofieff and Korngold may have been able to write background music appropriate for a film scene, but for a real life report? HItchcock knew the value of getting the music right. Do the even more ephemeral news reports have the budgets to produce just the right underlying sounds? If not, why add these sounds and alienate your auditors from what is actually being said, unless all you really want is for your auditors to have a good feeling about what was said, as in the overcoming of the will, and so return for more of your news.
Perhaps the ephemerality of the news reports is the only reason that no-one really cares. Tomorrow no-one will remember that all they heard was the background and the real message, as they say, went in by one ear and out by the other.
If the message matters, speak the message not something else. And of course, you will say to me, Physician, heal thyself! And quite rightly too for this note, article, post, report or whatever else you may wish to call it contains much that is neither relevant nor important, having nothing to do with the conclusion or message I wished to convey, and which you will no doubt not remember, so to conclude then with the message of the message:
If the message matters, speak the message.
From which what do you conclude about this message?
Offences, which do not like a joke – an open letter
Have you heard the one about the Yorkshireman, the Cornishman and the man of Kent? It doesn’t quite have the ring about it as an opening line as ‘Have you heard the one about the Irishman, the Scotsman and the Englishman?’ But if Coco used the latter, Coco would get away with the rest of it in an English public house, providing none of the English liberal elite were present, and might regret the long, but deserved, stay in hospital if Coco tried it in Clonmel. What the reaction would be in Aberdeen is as clear as whether Schrödinger’s cat is alive or dead.
But, in using the second opener Coco is not being racist, Coco is making a professional judgement; the joke needs something on which to hang the three preposterous remarks, and as we know a joke will not succeed if it is longwinded.
We all characterise others, and recognise characteristics in our own stock. Coco is a man of deep pockets and short arms, which says nothing of Coco’s wealth nor physical incapability, when Coco’s part of the country is the butt of the joke. Does Coco take offence at that? No, why should Coco, when Coco only need to take offence if Coco is insecure in Coco’s belief that all such characterisations are at the same time far from the truth and close to the truth. Schrödinger’s cat lives again.
Some people are though quick to take offence. The BBC, about whom you complained, ran an article some years ago which had a picture of whited up Nigerians. If it is appropriate to white up, then why not also to be able to black up? A more recent report suggested that one ballet dancer felt humiliated that she had been asked to white up in Berlin, but when you look at cosmetics in countries which are populated predominantly by darker skin colours than ours, how many whitening products does one find? Another aspect of the report referenced an idea that when you are on stage you can retain your own identity. Coco had thought that the whole point of being a stage actor was to take on the identity of the person you were to portray, which of necessity requires the giving up of your own. If Coco were to watch a spy film, Coco would not want to see Sean Connery but James Bond. Whiting up for the stage does not imply a loss of identity any more than it did for the Nigerian men, for whom it was probably part of their identity.
The present malaise about racism has much which is unforgiving in it. An elder of a church said recently that these movements have much for which to answer. For years we have had people coming in and out of our church of a huge variety of hues, and all I have ever seen are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ who want to love, serve and worship him. Now I am asked to take note of whether they are black or white – with nothing in between?
Racism is thinking about race as marking someone else different to (and probably also implied less deserving than) me. But this gentleman, and probably many thousands like him, had never had race in his thinking in his dealing with others. Your reported comments suggest that you are probably one like him. Anti-racist sentiment however forces us to think in racist terms. It is not something that either you or Coco want to do.
Recently Coco complained that a professional institute had set up a black section. Coco asked that as it would be considered inappropriate to have a white section, why did they think it appropriate to have a black section. The response did not address the question, but merely referenced the usefulness of the section to the minority group. Coco has no doubt at all that the section is useful, but Coco still considers that it is an inappropriate use of the funds of the organisation. Such a view as Coco has is however unpopular.
The recent mantra that ‘diversity is required for the prosperity of our company etc’, seems to forget that the UK and its companies were at their most prosperous when the very opposite was true. It is not a message that people want to hear today. [For reasons other than diversity Coco would not want to return to those days.]
In Coco’s view you were right to point out that there was a lack of diversity in the Gospel Singer of the Year. Coco was not aware of the event, and Coco has not troubled his own self to find out any more about it yet. It does not really however surprise Coco to hear that the finalists were all black. It is nothing however to do with race but rather with culture and skill. The culture promotes a particular style of gospel singing which is popular today. Coco quite understands that and in some settings quite enjoys listening to it*. There are other styles of gospel singing which probably, due to the preferences of the present day, would not get past the first round. How far would George Beverly Shea have got today? Perhaps even Graham Kendrick or Stuart Townsend would not survive many rounds. A presbyterian a cappella precentor would probably not even have been allowed in the first round, but it seems to Coco that the precentor is much more of a gospel singer in terms of what the Scriptures require than any of the others.
Whilst the organisers have no control over the line-up of finalists, it is difficult however to understand what wisdom the organisers saw in not ensuring that there was ‘diversity’ in the other members of team, judges, presenters etc. unless they wish to say there was diversity as they had representatives of several different racial groups such as Shona, Zulu, Igbo, Fulani, Ethiopic, Somali and the hundreds of others whose names Coco has never known. But would that sort of diversity not in itself be an acknowledgment of racism in their thinking?
Coco is sorry that you were taken to task for merely pointing out the obvious. There are times when the emperor does not wear his clothes and it does no harm to others, but there are times when it does do harm and it behoves us to mention it in the most polite way that we possibly can.
A difficulty we have though is that we know that by speaking in apparently anti-cultural [unpolitically correct is close but not quite right] ways we shall become objects of opprobrium. We can hope however that those that take offence at our words do so only because they have not fully understood what was said, and have not yet understood the contradictions in their own position. Coco is glad to have read that you have discussed the matter you raised with some of these groups of people and are willing to continue to do so. The report on the BBC seems to show that they have failed to understand what you actually said. Coco hopes that does not also reflect an unwillingness to understand, and that by discussion they will learn.
Racism is a problem, and some people are hurt by it. Racism is however not just practiced by white people. You could say that the Atlantic slave trade, for which we are still vilified even though we abolished it, was driven by racism within West Africa. The slave trade across Africa to the east clearly shows all the signs of racism. But it is rife worldwide: the dominance of the Han in China, the endless in fighting between tribes in the African republics, the Iberian dominance in South America; Coco is sure you know of many other specific examples and far more than Coco knows.
For some however it is a tool that can be used for advantage: a complaint is made by A ‘You didn’t choose me because I am a different colour than you’. The complaint is not entirely unfounded. A was not chosen because A was both not the right person for the job and secondly because A is racist. The employer believes in diversity and does not want to employ someone who thinks that race matters and should be brought into the considerations for a job.
But race does matter. You are an Irishman. Coco has often offended an Irishman by saying we are all British here forgetting that my friend is from the south. She is still a friend. Coco cannot enter into the cultural secrets of a Japanese family any more than a South African can understand how a UK business planning meeting works. Where it matters we must recognise it and allow for it, but where it does not we are all equal before a sovereign God to whom we must answer for the way we treat those who have also been made in his image.
Let the world do as it will. If it wants to promote racial differences under the guise of anti-racist sentiment, let it do so. Let us present the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, male nor female. Let us not regard any man by the flesh, but according to whether they love the Lord. In this way we shall be truly anti-racist whilst celebrating the diversity of culture that God has given to us. The gospel of free grace, an incarnate God and a crucified Saviour has more offence in it than any offence of which the world is capable to the pride of man.
A tautologous repetition of conceptual ideas will not produce the making of a taxonomic classification of factual data items however well clothed with an investment in a garb of reasonable logic, but it may provide a cane with which to rod those with whom your tolerance will have nothing to do.
There were four schools on the remote populous Atlantic Island of South Withering, we call them A, B, C and D. The Island had overall a poor reputation for the education of its people and wished to improve its standards. A report was commissioned and after much deliberation it was agreed by the educational sociologists that the recommendations would be implemented subject to some minor modifications which they assured all would not invalidate the new measures. It was a stick and carrot approach but as with most social sociology the emphasis was upon the carrot. There would be rewards for increasing standards of achievement amongst pupils as this was felt to be the most appropriate way to encourage both schools and pupils.
The targets were ambitious, but given the abysmal starting point generally recognised as not unattainable. Over three years there was a hope, it was not expressed as an expectation, of a ten percent improvement in educational achievements. The teachers at school C were quite concerned about the targets, but nevertheless threw their weight behind the initiative and after learning that their colleagues at school D were struggling offered them help in the form of additional coaching and tutoring. The teachers at schools D and C worked together over the following years. Schools A and B continued to make steady but not remarkable progress.
At the day of assessment all four schools were astonished at the outcome. School D received prestigious rewards for its achievements. Schools A and B were commended, but school C would be placed in special measures for its failure to draw anywhere close to the targets that had been set.
The results table was as follows:
Grades
α
β
γ
Overall
υ
A
10%
13%
20%
15%
-50%
B
12%
10%
10%
11%
-69%
C
0%
3%
-5%
0%
0%
D
50%
25%
30%
31%
-68%
Increase in numbers passing exams at grades and decrease in unclassified results
What was not disclosed however were the actual numbers of pupils before and after (the before numbers have been scaled to match the current numbers):
Before
After
Grades
α
β
γ
υ
α
β
γ
υ
Total
A
150
230
200
170
165
260
240
85
750
B
130
180
210
80
146
198
231
25
600
C
450
30
20
0
450
31
19
0
500
D
90
250
350
310
135
312
455
98
1000
Total
820
690
780
360
896
801
945
208
2850
All of the teaching staff knew that without the dedicated support of the staff at school C, in guiding her teachers but primarily in motivating her students, school D would have made little or no progress. But in their hearts, they knew, it was useless to say anything. For school C even the best possible result would have been regarded as a failure: +11% at α -100% at β -100% at γ -0% at υ.
What has that to do with Welsh farmers one may ask? I too do wonder why they are in December 2020 to be given new reduced greenhouse gas emission targets when they already have one of the lowest rates of emission in the world?
Jones, the farmer, who had been very active in the farmers’ union throughout his working life, on his retirement had been asked to present to his colleagues on the techniques that he had used and tried over his many years’ of active life. Some months later in the course of his closing remarks he mentioned that he had farmed 1000 hectares for over forty years, and through the implementation of systems of active land management and rotation in his last twenty or so years had increased his average five year yield from 6 tonnes an hectare to 8, but in this latest year he had achieved over 10 tonnes per acre.
His peers were impressed by his long term achievement, but what had he done recently? ‘Remarkable’, they spoke to one another in the reception afterwards. ‘Indeed’ would be the reply, ‘what had he done, what is the secret?’ And all and sundry wanted to ask him the burning question, but he seemed to take control of every conversation and steer the discussion away from the question of yield to techniques and environmental impact. Eventually the younger farmers gave up, until another retired gentleman farmer spoke out, and asked Jones to explain to the company what he had meant and how he had done it, giving Jones, as only an older man could do, no escape. Jones replied quite simply, ‘if you are willing to put in the effort then ten tons per acre is not in anyway unachievable, but, he added, I knew that if I planted more than one square yard I would not be able to devote sufficient care to the crop to produce such a yield.’
‘By the grace of God given to me, Paul, do not think more highly of yourself than you ought, but let each by careful judgement measure yourselves according to the faith that God has given you. ‘ Of course, if we have no faith then we have no standard by which to measure, but nevertheless our standard is Jesus Christ, who loving his enemies, gave his life for us that we may receive from him faith and so be able to serve and love him in his eternal kingdom (Romans 12:3 and elsewhere).
There are, as you, dear reader, well know, four types of sieve. This conclusion is founded upon the well-established theory of sieves, which states that a sieve is an object with two properties each of which may be in one of two states. The two states are of permission and denial. The properties relate to the passage of fluids (liquids and gases) and solids. Thus a sieve is an object which will either permit or deny the passage of liquids or solids. Where both states are set to denial (Permissio Aut Nunquam), we have a pan sieve, which as a result of the dropping of the noun and retention of the adjective as an adjectival noun – a common occurrence in the English language – is commonly known as a pan. We must be careful however in any discussion of the theory of sieves to use the correct terminology. Where both states are set to permit (Permissio In Propter aEternum) we have a pipe sieve, which becomes known to us, for the same reasons, as a pipe or where the pipe has zero thickness a ring or hoop. The second order of sieve is where the fluid property is set to permit and the solid to deny. This is the, somewhat perhaps confusingly but it has become the standard convention, the solid sieve (Solidum Obstructus; Licet fluidum Ius Detur). In everyday use in the kitchen or garden we would simply refer to it as a sieve. The fourth order of sieve, which is a fluid* sieve has a state of deny to fluids and permit to solids. It is under standard convention known as the exotic sieve. It is thought to have significant technological advantages over much that is presently used in engineering, for the storage of fluids and the building of engines which rely upon clean fluid fuels. It would be possible to clean fluids in a static environment, the fuel tank of your car for example, rather than using a filter in the pathways to the combustion chamber. Exhaust gases similarly and waste liquids could be cleaned and solids collected safely. The possibilities for use in a waste treatment plant are considered to be inestimable.
As yet the exotic sieve has not been observed in the real world, but early work in the late Soviet Union under Lysenko, who was primarily an agricultural scientist but saw the potential benefits of this sieve made some progress, but sadly the work ceased to be funded in 1989. It is thought that the work may be continuing in Xin-Jiang or perhaps Wuhan, but no official confirmation of this has been possible to obtain.
So what has this to do with standees, well we shall now see. Coco was astonished to see the use of the word so Coco thought: Coco should consider other words which use this construction. You may care to correct the following:
It is an anchorage. The anchors anchor the anchee, which then becomes the anchored. Hmm, I think that is wrong. It is the boat, carrying the anchor, which is anchored.
It is an appointment. The appointors appoint the appointee who then becomes the appointed.
It is a beavering. The beavers beave the beavees which then become the beaved.
It is a colouring. The colours colour the colees which then become the coloured. It is better in US English.
It is a donation. The donors done [to] the donees, who then become the done[d]. Well, a three year old might say I have doed it, but I have doned it, perhaps not.
It is an execution. The executors and executrices execute the executees, who then become the executed.
It is an escape. The escapers escape the escapees, who then become the escaped. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was the escapees who escaped, but the -ees and -ors cannot be the same surely?
It is a firing. The firer fires the firee, who then becomes the fired. Well, you probably would not say it quite like that, but it makes sense at least.
It is a footballing. The footballers football the footballee, which then becomes the footballed.
It is a going. The goers go to the goee, which become the gone.
It is a howing. The howers how the howee, which becomes the howed.
It is an idling. The idlers idle the idlee, which becomes the idled.
It is a jambing. The jamborors jambor the jamboree, which becomes the jamboreed.
It is a joke. The jokers joke the jokee, who then becomes the joked.
It is a killing. The killers kill the killee, who then becomes the killed.
It is a laughing. The laughers laugh [at] the laughee, who then becomes the laughed.
It is a mortgage. The mortgagor mortgages the mortgagee, which then becomes the mortgaged.
It is a mourning. The mourners mourn the mournee, who then becomes the mourned.
It is a numbering. The numbers number the numberee which then becomes the numbered. After this my days probably are too.
It is a ornamentation. The ornamentor ornaments the ornamentee, who/which then becomes the ornamented. That should rather probably be: The ornamentrix ornaments the ornamentee, who then becomes the ornamented.
It is a payment. The payers pay the payee, who then becomes the paid.
It is a quelling. The quellors quell the quellee, which then becomes the quelled.
It is a ramble (like this). The ramblers ramble the ramblee which then becomes the rambled.
It is a registration. The registrars register the [interest of the] registrant which then becomes the registered.
It is a sizeuppance. The sizeuppers size the sizeuppees up, who then become the sizedup.
It is a spectacle. The spectators spectate the spectatees, who then become the spectated.
It is a standing. The standers stand (on/in front of/behind/below/above/next to etc?) the standees, who then become the standed.
It is a tidying up. The tidy-uppers tidy up the tidy-uppee, which then becomes the tidied-up.
It is a usurpation. The usurpers usurped the usurpee, who became the usurped.
It is a vivisection. The vivisectors vivisected the vivisectee which became the vivisected.
It is a waiting. The waiters and waitresses wait [on/for] the waitees, who then become the weighted.
It is a wedding. The wedders wed the weddees, who then become the wedded.
It is a weighing. The weigher weigh the weighees who then become the weighed.
It is a xysteration. The xysterators xysterate the xysteree, which becomes the xysterated.
It is a yanking. The yankers yank the Yankee, which becomes the yanked.
It is a zincing. The zincers zinc the zincee, which then becomes the zinced. Coco knows Coco should have said galvanising, but z-verbs are fewer and further between then x-verbs. Zoom does not cut the mustard.
Has it become obvious to you that the -ee-or endings, like the famous donkey, are rather morose. They speak of an empty head which has seen the -ee-or elsewhere and thought ‘that can be used in place of ‘standing’’. On a bus, there is likely to be a notice indicating that it is licensed to carry 30 seated and 20 standing. What has clearly been forgotten is that this is a common English way of saying 30 seated passengers and 20 standing passengers. Standing is an adjective without its noun, just as pan in the initial discussion is an adjective without its noun. Coco suspects that perhaps they were told that standing is an adjective and thought ‘O, we cannot use that then’. Did they forget, there is already a noun implied in the notice which does not need to be said, but sometimes is, or at least used to be, and therefore standing is the correct word to use. Better than standee then would have been to use orthostatis, at least the correct form of that word is definitively defined, if Coco may use a tautologous repetition of a conceptual idea.
By the way, the second purpose of the discussion of the sieve was also to show that just because a theory suggests the existence of a particular state of matter, the real world does not have to provide it. There may be an apparently empty slot (*as above for the Fluidum obstructus; licet solidum ius detur seive) in our design for the world, but it is perhaps just as likely that the design is wrong as that the thing for the slot exists.
For in saying: where is the promise of his coming, they wilfully forget that God made the worlds of old out of water and destroyed them with water (ie the cataclysm). Just so he shall destroy the present world (at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ) with fire (2 Peter 3 and elsewhere). Do you have a conception of this world which excludes that? Does your paradigm omit judgement and retribution? We must not forget that God has shown his wrath, and mercy towards sinners, in the death of Jesus Christ who for sinners received the just judgement and retribution that our sins deserved in order that God may justly show mercy and provide forgiveness to sinners.
If Coco said that the opinion that ‘A is safe’ is supported by 100 years of medical experience, and the opinion that ‘A is not safe’ is only supported by sixty such years, which opinion are you more likely to trust?
If Coco further told you that one hundred second year medical students had formed the first opinion, but only two consultants in their late fifties had formed the second, would you remain of the same view?
What bearing then does the fact that there are 100 years of medical experience between the UK regulator and the committee advising which groups of people should be vaccinated first have upon the opinion that the CMO promulgates?
Furthermore, we all know that it was a committee that designed the first camel to win the Grand National.
On Thursday, the UK’s deputy chief medical officer Prof Jonathan Van-Tam told the BBC he was “very confident” in the MHRA. He said there was more than “100 years of medical experience” between the UK regulator and the committee advising which groups of people are vaccinated first.
