See what you have missed!
I’ve been doing it for years - long before Mr Trump even considered running for President! I hope that it doesn’t cause you some deep-seated psychological problem, and apologise if it does.
It’s just odd to use a different term to the rest of the world. Not my problem, it’s you who has got it wrong.
1 Like
Without wishing to continue this unnecessarily, I must confess, I have never, until now, seen it written: USoA … but rather USA which is always spoken as “United States of America”…
As I recall from my long-ago school days… in acronyms such as USA words like “the” “and” “or” “of” are understood… and left out…
(but, there is always an exception to this rule…and sometimes the short prepositions do remain, if the acronym would otherwise be just 2 letters and considered unsuitable/unacceptable etc… )
2 Likes
Bravo Peter!
I must admit, Brian, that I have never seen or heard of the USA being written as the USoA. However, if that’s the way that you wish to write it, then, you have the right to write it as you wish, without criticism.
Are you sure Mark?
Or is that Marc? 
Thanks Peter 
. Not being a despot, yes, I am sure.
What is interesting to me, Brian, is the fact that although I do not write USoA, I do write DoD (Department of Defense). Language is an interesting thing.
Exactly. On the button. First class. Got it in one. A classic.
There are conventions that should be applied to. Thank you for supporting my point, I would be even happier if I believed that you actually knew you were doing so and not just trying to be clever.
Nothing strange there, you are just following convention. The o for of is included when referring to the Department of Defense as the DoD. The United States of America is referred to as the USA. You are correct in both cases.
https://www.defense.gov
One thing (I hope) we can all agree on. Each electorate must have the opportunity to vote and must vote for itself. In the EU, the UK has done this and we must respect the result of the vote. In some other countries which have held referendums on the EU, this has regrettably not happened. Just saying.
2 Likes
Hi Bob… I know I could respect the UK/EU vote more, if it had not lacked some basic ground rules …but, it sadly allowed such a close call… to be called a Decision 
.
Roughly 17m For and roughly 16m Against… and those millions who did not vote… It is clear (to me at least) that the Leave decision cannot truly be held as representative of The People of the UK.
7 Likes
I understand your argument Stella, and yet by that logic we would not
accept the majority vote in any election, in the UK or elsewhere. Just
to take one example, Macron is the clear winner in the French elections
- I am sure you will agree. And yet, taking account of the over 51%
abstention, only 16% of the electorate actually have voted for his
manifesto. Would you therefore say that he is not representative of the
French people’s choice?
1 Like
Snide? Moi? 
1 Like
Ha ha Bob… you will really get me started if you are not careful.
My complaint, if such it is… is that there was not a clear line set… to pass, to win…a line showing a suitable difference between Leave and Stay… a clear show of strength (eg perhaps 70% of voters)…accepting nearly 50/50 is too tight for such a serious question, in my own view…
Regarding Macron. Yesterday was spent discussing French politics with many, many voters…Seems there is hope, at grass-roots, of a new 6th Republic, with a change of Constitution… which will enable the minorities to “be heard”. Seems many folk do not feel that the French President actually represents them and/or their hopes…so why have they voted for his Legislators, I asked this morning…who knows the answer to that…
4 Likes
@Eugenie Name calling is not permitted here, please refrain.
http://www.survivefrance.com/t/argumentum-ad-hominem-survive-france-guidelines/11538/
Thank you, James, for trying to keep the discussion from getting personal.
Eugenie,
If you read the book I mentioned in my first post you will, I think, have a better understanding of why some people have a different point of view to yours.
1 Like
Exactly Stella, should have been a 2 to 1 majority needed for something so important. Just goes to show that the people who run (the) countries have much less intelligence than we are led to believe - amazes me how they manage to get into “public” school and oxbridge, shouldn’t think money has anything to do with it though…
1 Like
As a matter of fact Mark, though public schools aren’t all particularly academically selective even now, back in the day going to Oxford or Cambridge had nothing to do with income, because we could all get grants - it was just about how good you were at exams and how passionate you were about your subject and how you interviewed. Even now my old college has loads of undergraduates who pay nothing at all because it is rich enough (thanks to getting bequests over the past getting on for 600 years and having Keynes as a bursar) to support undergraduates itself by not charging any fees and giving them maintenance grants. And people like me occasionally bung them a tenner when there is one to spare because it is terrible to think that a brilliant mind could miss out on higher education there for financial reasons.
1 Like