On Mar 25, 3:48 am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Cecil
Moore writes
Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
your analysis is correct but moot
Is he stealing your style?

"Moot" is an interesting word, Richard. From
Webster's - "moot - 1. a: debatable, b: disputed"

Have a look here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moot_hall
I remember 'Moot Hall' from my days at primary school (some 60 years
ago), learning about the Anglo-Saxons. I guess the word may possibly be
associated with 'meet', ie a meeting hall where things were debated.
However, my Anglo-Saxon is a bit rusty (not much call for it these days).

Cecil was using "moot" in its legal sense: that a point had become
irrelevant, or no longer needed to be decided because of a change in
circumstances.

Or at least, Cecil tried to claim that a point made by Keith had become
moot. But Keith disputed that... and so it rumbles on.

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK


Rumbles, yes indeed. But does it retain any entertainment value, or
has it simply gotten painful to watch?

Cheers,
Tom