Talk:Edward Pilgrim

Untitled[edit]

Was his wife really "Martgaret", or is that a typo? My Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. vol. 44 has gone missing, or I'd check myself ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typpo. Lunchtime, or I'd fixit meself. Geogre 16:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The death date seems to be ambiguous in the article. Is is September 22 or September 24? jni 12:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The way I work is by glancing over my notes to find the death date, typing it, and then going on, where, later, when I put the date in the narrative, I was not glancing but reading. I.e. the later date would be the right one. I've changed it. Geogre 12:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"well-intentioned abuses of bureaucracy"[edit]

What is so well-intentioned about robbing people of their property without just compensation? --Jcmo (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The legislation was well intended. It was intended to prevent people defrauding the government by saying, "Right! Well, this here swamp land could become a great amusement park, so I want you to pay me millions." The fact that it was poorly executed is at the heart of things. The fact that it was blindly applied is the critical feature of red tape murder. Geogre (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this law wasn't meant to be applied to useless land, was it? This law gave the Government the power to forcibly remove (some would say steal) land from its rightful owners, and use it for residencial or commercial purposes, while at the same time paying those owners a small compensation for that land, as if it was not fit for such purposes. --Jcmo (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want to see Eminent domain, then. In the grand scheme of things, this one was pretty well intentioned, given the fact that there have been thousands of seizures for military uses (bombing ranges and the like), and even for resale to commercial developers. This one was to create public housing. Geogre (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Alexander Pilgrim was a British homeowner and suicide[edit]

Surely that doesn't make sense? Arthulian (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does. It is an uncommon usage, but it is entirely cromulent to refer to a person who commits suicide as "a suicide." You can see it here, but it is proper, and any translation of Dante will have the outer circle of Hell for "suicides." Geogre (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may make sense to people who know that, but we aren't living in that time. It should be more of about our time..with out the leet speak and aim speek of course. Rgood erm ote 01:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, because some people are unfamiliar with "suicide" as judgment (like a convict), we should make an editorial change? That's your position? Dictionaries show that it is currently proper, that contemporary English has the usage, and I even went to the trouble of giving an online link so that no one would have to look it up, and yet we should restructure because there might be people who might not know this? Instead of letting them learn something, we should change the wording? That does not seem like a sufficient case for making a change to me. Geogre (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that a lot of people won't get that term. It's not used in common speech today. All that will end up happening is some sort of edit war over the wording. However, I'm not going to fight on this anymore. This isn't even my thing. Rgood erm ote 21:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]