NationStates Jolt Archive

... is probably needed. Why on earth do people think that by using the word whereas as punctuation it makes your proposal look super cool and intelligent?

Whereas the resolution "End Barbaric Punishments" will probably be passed,

Whereas the resolution "End Barbaric Punishments" says that when punishing someone for a crime, "The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment,"

Whereas death is a cruel and unusual punishment,

Therefore, the UN agrees to ban the death penalty.

Whearas what? Whereas means "while on the contrary", not "this is the UN and i am so kewl... dude". It's a conjunction, it makes no sense whatsoever when it's not used as a conjunction. Stop using it in other ways.

My region agrees that surely any proposal consisting largely of whereas is surely not from the mind of an intelligent UN member and as such our small contribution towards quashing it shall be made.

Whereas
Usage of archaic legalism is an amusing hobby, and
Whereas
Old habits die hard, especially ones which make no sense, and
Whereas
Everyone knows that if someone cannot understand your langauge, that proves you are smarter than they are, and
Whereas
this is a great way to make impressive sounding lists,

Now, therefore
We do hereby respectfully oppose this spoilsport proposal.

"Whereas" Is reqiured for bills in congress. The problem it, you only use it in the first four lines, not every line.

Firstly, a proposal to ban "whereas" is a game mechanics proposal, which the mods don't allow. Secondly, Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whereas) says you're wrong:


where·as (hwâr-z, wâr-)
conj.

1. It being the fact that; inasmuch as.
2. While at the same time.
3. While on the contrary.


n.

1. An introductory statement to a formal document; a preamble.
2. A conditional statement.

Thirdly, there are already guidelines in place for the wording of UN proposals... not that anyone follows them...

I thought "Whereas" means on the other hand or conversely or something similar to that effect.

It seems very odd to begin an argument with "On the otherhand" and you are the first to talk.

Thirdly, there are already guidelines in place for the wording of UN proposals... not that anyone follows them...
True, and "whereas" has nothing to do with these guidelines. Someone mentioned that "whereas" is necessary in Congress, but this isn't Congress, it's the UN. If you want to sound smart, check out a real UN resolution, and see how they are crafted. They actually have some word variety, although this may be a hard concept for some nations to grasp. :shock:

... is probably needed. Why on earth do people think that by using the word whereas as punctuation it makes your proposal look super cool and intelligent?

Whereas the resolution "End Barbaric Punishments" will probably be passed,

Whereas the resolution "End Barbaric Punishments" says that when punishing someone for a crime, "The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment,"

Whereas death is a cruel and unusual punishment,

Therefore, the UN agrees to ban the death penalty.

Whearas what? Whereas means "while on the contrary", not "this is the UN and i am so kewl... dude". It's a conjunction, it makes no sense whatsoever when it's not used as a conjunction. Stop using it in other ways.

My region agrees that surely any proposal consisting largely of whereas is surely not from the mind of an intelligent UN member and as such our small contribution towards quashing it shall be made.

simply put: Who cares is you use "whereas"? stop whining

Rep. Ray Stoeser
The Creme de la Creme land of Cremerica
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/cremerica.jpg
Alaska...Yeah, we're bigger than Texas
On a mission to stop whiny nations with no sense of humor!
http://www.petsignsplus.com/1fungif/nowhining.jpg
Life is to short to complain about it

This forum and community is an interesting trichotomy. You have a group of quite bright people, obviously well educated, intelligent and adept with language. You have your lesser gifted yet still sensible and decent people. These two I've no problem with. The last group though are those who are neither gifted nor sensible, yet try vainly to look bright through nothing but misuse and abuse of the language. Their lack of gift manifests itself at times as the utter ignorance of sarcasm, wit, irony, humour and satire.

Firstly, a proposal to ban "whereas" is a game mechanics proposal, which the mods don't allow. Thank you mod. Oh.. you're not a mod? There is no real proposal like this? I've no intention of ever making a proposal like this? You missed the point utterly? My.. I wonder which group you fall into?

Secondly, Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whereas) says you're wrong:


where·as (hwâr-z, wâr-)
conj.

1. It being the fact that; inasmuch as.
2. While at the same time.
3. While on the contrary.


n.

1. An introductory statement to a formal document; a preamble.
2. A conditional statement. Not the brightest bulb in the chandelier are we? See how it says 'conj.' in there? That's short for 'conjunction'. A conjunction is used to join two clauses together. You cannot use it with only one clause.

Note that whilst a conjunction may precede or intersect the two clauses, it must have two clauses to join regardless of the position. Interestingly enough, the proposal I quoted has 4 clauses- and 4 conjunctions. Admittedly, the 'therefore' could be seen as joining the entire proposal to it's conclusion... but that leaves us with three clauses and three conjunctions. We are three clauses short, just like you're a few cans short of a six-pack.

Now, my point again. We all make spelling and grammar mistakes. No one worthy of mention really cares. I've undoubtedly made a few of both in this post. It's not interfered with the conveyance of my message though. Making a mess of a proposal by throwing in 'whereas' at the start of 3/4 of the lines is quite different.

The persons proposal could quite easily have read as follows:

"Noting that the proposal "End Barbaric Puniushment" will most likely be passed, we feel that a clarification and extension should be in order. We propose that the original proposal is ammended to bring capital punishment within the domain of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. As such this will make it unlawful within the UN".

See? No worthless hanging conjunctions, still lots of big words so they look cool- and it conveys the message one dang of a lot clearer.

I feel though the point is to be lost on you.

Phrases like "Whereas", "Recalling" and so on is part of the standard mode of expression in UN resolutions. Thus this sort of language is entirely in character.

cheers

Phrases like "Whereas", "Recalling" and so on is part of the standard mode of expression in UN resolutions. Thus this sort of language is entirely in character.

cheers

Oh? Whilst those words may very well be used on occassion in the right place in formal descriptions, as sure as bears defaecate in the woods they don't use conjunctions in single clauses do they?

I'm not complaining about the word choice. I'm complaining about the stupid grammar that makes the proposal nearly incomprehensible. My little sister, probably half the age of the person making the proposal, insists too that the word choice is bizarre and wrong. It's not the words that are an issue, it's their usage that neither "incorrect" nor "informal", it's just plain "stupid".

Then again, that the point needs to be explained like that means the same could very well apply to you :)

How about instead of people trying to look cool and mangling the language like 3 year olds, they just say what they mean? It's possible to make ones point very clear in a presenable manner without screwing up your grammar beyond comprehension.

Indeed, it was my belief that communication in diplomatic circles relied on clear and precise transferance of knowledge and information, not looking like a 2 bit wanker with big words in the wrong place :)

It's getting rediculous, argueing about a word.

This is a game (intended to be enjoyed by a variety of people) not an english lesson.

Wheras useing speling adn gramer erors ar uneckskusable.
Wheras killen pepole iz funn.
Wheras pepole submitt proposalls wit two manee spellin' an' gramer errurs
Wheras spellin adn gramer errur are uneckskusable evan fur sarcasim.
Wheras spellin' adn gramer errurs ar crimez
wheras punnishment fur crimez iz a gud reazon too kil pepole
wheras baad spellin' an' gramer iz a cryme.
wheras punnishment fur badd spellin' an' gramer iz a gud reazon too kil pepole.
Wheras teh uze off whereas shud merit ecktra painfull deth.
wheras al disputs on spellin shal folow the Ocksford Inglish Dickshunary.

It's getting rediculous, argueing about a word.

This is a game (intended to be enjoyed by a variety of people) not an english lesson.

Obviously, English is not your strong point. Perhaps you're not from an English speaking country, perhaps you're just an idiot. We may never truly know.

The issue however is making sure that people such as yourself can understand what the UN is proposing. Can you honestly say that the proposal makes any kind of sense? Given you can't even spell 'arguing' I feel it's a fairly safe bet you're utterly destitute of comprehension.

My point is rather than using superflous and incorrect words, that people should concentrate on making their proposal clear, concise and effective. Something that your average idiots needs read several times before even the vaguest comprehension dawns upon them is less than worthless, it's counter productive.

But of course... you'd not be able to see that. Run along now, go and play with a golden book or something :)

"Indeed, it was my belief that communication in diplomatic circles relied on clear and precise transferance of knowledge and information, not looking like a 2 bit wanker with big words in the wrong place

Obviously you have never worked with UN documents, to whom the description "clear and precise tranferance of knowledge and nformation" almost never applies :D

From my own point of view as a mod, it does actually make it easier to see what a proposal is on about (and thus whether or not it should be deleted) if it runs "Whereas blablabla whereas blablabla, the United Nations ALARMED that blablabla, RECALLING that fiddledeedee" and so on, rather than "thisisanexceedinglylongandconvolutedproposalwhichmayormaynotbeonareallyimportantissuebutwecan'tbetot allyandunequivocallysureatthemoment".

From my own point of view as a mod, it does actually make it easier to see what a proposal is on about (and thus whether or not it should be deleted) if it runs "Whereas blablabla whereas blablabla, the United Nations ALARMED that blablabla, RECALLING that fiddledeedee" and so on, rather than "thisisanexceedinglylongandconvolutedproposalwhichmayormaynotbeonareallyimportantissuebutwecan'tbetot allyandunequivocallysureatthemoment".

You're saying that deliberate poor and convoluted grammar is more succinct than anything else? I understand that at least breaking into sentences rather than a solid wall of 4-6 syllable words may make it easier... but there are much better ways to clearly state something than slathering 'whereas' everywhere.

"And this is a sentence. And the dog hit the tree. And the goose was green. Therefore the moon is purple. "

That's what it's like, conjunctions not joining anything. It makes no sense to me, it makes no sense to my little sister and it makes no sense to my partner. How is everyone else supposed to make sense of it?

The proposal in question has dissapeared into nothingness. Either it was disagreed with- or it was simply that poorly written as to not communicate a point at all.

Therein lies the crux of the matter- does starting every sentence with 'whereas', incorrectly as it is possible to validly start sentences with it, better convey the meaning? I say no. If you disagree, you're entitled to your view, the proof however does lie in wether or not the proposal is sucessful.

It's said that it's not what you argue but how you argue that matters. Hilter for example, utter murderous maniac, still managed to talk people into trying genocide and taking over Europe. Churchill helped inspire his defeat with words. I bet you they didn't screw around with 'whereas the sky is blue whereas lets win the war whereas omg i r teh suq at grammer whereas'.

I can't recall off the top of my head whether U.N. resolutions use "whereas", however they do have several clauses they use to begin each statement with. As an example, take a look at these resolutions recently passed by the U.N. Security Council: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions03.html

As someone stated before "whereas" is used in the United States Congress. The United Nations uses an entirely different system. I think the person had the right intent, but not the right knowledge.

So, Gigglealia, whether you like it or not, the United Nations DOES use clauses such as "whereas" in its resolutions. So by using it here, the author is adding a bit of authenticity to their work. If you continue to have a problem with it, then I'd suggest you fly to New York and take it up with Secretary-General Kofi Annan and President of the General Assembly, Mr. Julian Hunte of Saint Lucia. :)

---
Rev. Dr. Hezekiah Giradoo
Prime Minister of the Federation of Giradoo
State Secretary of Defense for Western Europe

"Outside of the killings, Giradoo has one of the lowest crime rates in the region."

It's getting rediculous, argueing about a word.

This is a game (intended to be enjoyed by a variety of people) not an english lesson.

Obviously, English is not your strong point. Perhaps you're not from an English speaking country, perhaps you're just an idiot. We may never truly know.

The issue however is making sure that people such as yourself can understand what the UN is proposing. Can you honestly say that the proposal makes any kind of sense? Given you can't even spell 'arguing' I feel it's a fairly safe bet you're utterly destitute of comprehension.

My point is rather than using superflous and incorrect words, that people should concentrate on making their proposal clear, concise and effective. Something that your average idiots needs read several times before even the vaguest comprehension dawns upon them is less than worthless, it's counter productive.

But of course... you'd not be able to see that. Run along now, go and play with a golden book or something :)

Thank you for so eloquently informing me that i misspelt arguing. It is duly noted and i will never make such an horrendous mistake again.

May i also congratulate you on your superior command of the engish language. Please feel at liberty to point out any errors in this posting.

It's getting rediculous, argueing about a word.

This is a game (intended to be enjoyed by a variety of people) not an english lesson.

Obviously, English is not your strong point. Perhaps you're not from an English speaking country, perhaps you're just an idiot. We may never truly know.

The issue however is making sure that people such as yourself can understand what the UN is proposing. Can you honestly say that the proposal makes any kind of sense? Given you can't even spell 'arguing' I feel it's a fairly safe bet you're utterly destitute of comprehension.

My point is rather than using superflous and incorrect words, that people should concentrate on making their proposal clear, concise and effective. Something that your average idiots needs read several times before even the vaguest comprehension dawns upon them is less than worthless, it's counter productive.

But of course... you'd not be able to see that. Run along now, go and play with a golden book or something :)

Thank you for so eloquently informing me that i misspelt arguing. It is duly noted and i will never make such an horrendous mistake again.

May i also congratulate you on your superior command of the engish language. Please feel at liberty to point out any errors in this posting.
You misspelled the words misspelled, English, and I.

It's getting rediculous, argueing about a word.

This is a game (intended to be enjoyed by a variety of people) not an english lesson.

Obviously, English is not your strong point. Perhaps you're not from an English speaking country, perhaps you're just an idiot. We may never truly know.

The issue however is making sure that people such as yourself can understand what the UN is proposing. Can you honestly say that the proposal makes any kind of sense? Given you can't even spell 'arguing' I feel it's a fairly safe bet you're utterly destitute of comprehension.

My point is rather than using superflous and incorrect words, that people should concentrate on making their proposal clear, concise and effective. Something that your average idiots needs read several times before even the vaguest comprehension dawns upon them is less than worthless, it's counter productive.

But of course... you'd not be able to see that. Run along now, go and play with a golden book or something :)

Thank you for so eloquently informing me that i misspelt arguing. It is duly noted and i will never make such an horrendous mistake again.

May i also congratulate you on your superior command of the engish language. Please feel at liberty to point out any errors in this posting.
You misspelled the words misspelled, English, and I.

actually...misspelt is a word and is spelled correctly.
English is only capitalised at the beginning of a sentence or when talking about a group of people. The language english is not capitalised as a general form. Neither is spanish or german unless referring to the ethnic/country group.

I, however, needs to be capitalised.

It's getting rediculous, argueing about a word.

This is a game (intended to be enjoyed by a variety of people) not an english lesson.

Obviously, English is not your strong point. Perhaps you're not from an English speaking country, perhaps you're just an idiot. We may never truly know.

The issue however is making sure that people such as yourself can understand what the UN is proposing. Can you honestly say that the proposal makes any kind of sense? Given you can't even spell 'arguing' I feel it's a fairly safe bet you're utterly destitute of comprehension.

My point is rather than using superflous and incorrect words, that people should concentrate on making their proposal clear, concise and effective. Something that your average idiots needs read several times before even the vaguest comprehension dawns upon them is less than worthless, it's counter productive.

But of course... you'd not be able to see that. Run along now, go and play with a golden book or something :)

Thank you for so eloquently informing me that i misspelt arguing. It is duly noted and i will never make such an horrendous mistake again.

May i also congratulate you on your superior command of the engish language. Please feel at liberty to point out any errors in this posting.
You misspelled the words misspelled, English, and I.

actually...misspelt is a word and is spelled correctly.
English is only capitalised at the beginning of a sentence or when talking about a group of people. The language english is not capitalised as a general form. Neither is spanish or german unless referring to the ethnic/country group.

I, however, needs to be capitalised.

This is great, normally I just get ignored. :)

This is great, normally I just get ignored. :)

Congratulations, a sentence with the correct structure. ;-)

This is great, normally I just get ignored. :)

Congratulations, a sentence with the correct structure. ;-)

It's a comma splice. It should be two sentences.

This is great, normally I just get ignored. :)

Congratulations, a sentence with the correct structure. ;-)

It's a comma splice. It should be two sentences.

Well...it was close. I can just spell, I'm not so hot to trot with grammer rules.

i agree. "whereas" is an unneccesary word. it just makes everything all confusing. i rest my case, your honor.

I find it interesting that Gigglealia in one post said "We all make spelling and grammar mistakes. No one worthy of mention really cares." Later, Gigglealia said "Given you can't even spell 'arguing' I feel it's a fairly safe bet you're utterly destitute of comprehension. " Does this mean Gigglealia is not worth mentioning?

I can't recall off the top of my head whether U.N. resolutions use "whereas", however they do have several clauses they use to begin each statement with. As an example, take a look at these resolutions recently passed by the U.N. Security Council: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions03.html

As someone stated before "whereas" is used in the United States Congress. The United Nations uses an entirely different system. I think the person had the right intent, but not the right knowledge.

So, Gigglealia, whether you like it or not, the United Nations DOES use clauses such as "whereas" in its resolutions. So by using it here, the author is adding a bit of authenticity to their work. If you continue to have a problem with it, then I'd suggest you fly to New York and take it up with Secretary-General Kofi Annan and President of the General Assembly, Mr. Julian Hunte of Saint Lucia. :)

I looked at some of those documents... aside from being unable to find an occurence of 'whereas'... I sure didn't find them using it with a single clause.

I'l reiterate for you all. Whereas cannot be used with a single clause. It needs two parts. TWO parts. Is that clear? 2, II, TWO, 1+1. That's how many parts a whereas needs, otherwise it doesn't make *any* sense.

It's not the fact that people are using the word that matters. Indeed, I use the word myself on occassion. The issue lies in that whereas I use it with two clauses, some people are using it with only one.

See how it joins those two clauses- "I use it with two clauses", "some people are using it with only one". Whereas provides the conjunction. It associated those two clauses with an 'on the contrary' link. That's how 'whereas' is meant to be used. You can even start sentences with it, provided there are two distinct clauses in the sentence.

That's not how people are using it. They are simply trying to look cool by slathering it around. It's the same as starting every sentence with "On the contrary". Whilst everyone makes grammatical and spelling errors, that is a meaning error which completely alters what they're trying to say.


I find it interesting that Gigglealia in one post said "We all make spelling and grammar mistakes. No one worthy of mention really cares." Later, Gigglealia said "Given you can't even spell 'arguing' I feel it's a fairly safe bet you're utterly destitute of comprehension. " Does this mean Gigglealia is not worth mentioning?

My... few sandwiches short of a picnic are we? Good for you son, maybe your mummy will let you out of nappies soon. There's a difference between a smattering of typos plus lack of editing, or every few words having errors, total lack of structure and utter disregard of spelling or punctuation. I'm allowed to make judgements based on the latter, simply because I say so.

Why are you trying to turn this thread into one of those pansy arse little hissy fit threads about grammar or spelling? The issue is starting sentences with 'on the contrary', not misplaced apostrophes. Run along now, nap time surely.

This forum and community is an interesting trichotomy. You have a group of quite bright people, obviously well educated, intelligent and adept with language. You have your lesser gifted yet still sensible and decent people. These two I've no problem with. The last group though are those who are neither gifted nor sensible, yet try vainly to look bright through nothing but misuse and abuse of the language. Their lack of gift manifests itself at times as the utter ignorance of sarcasm, wit, irony, humour and satire.

Firstly, a proposal to ban "whereas" is a game mechanics proposal, which the mods don't allow. Thank you mod. Oh.. you're not a mod? There is no real proposal like this? I've no intention of ever making a proposal like this? You missed the point utterly? My.. I wonder which group you fall into?

Secondly, Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whereas) says you're wrong:


where·as (hwâr-z, wâr-)
conj.

1. It being the fact that; inasmuch as.
2. While at the same time.
3. While on the contrary.


n.

1. An introductory statement to a formal document; a preamble.
2. A conditional statement. Not the brightest bulb in the chandelier are we? See how it says 'conj.' in there? That's short for 'conjunction'. A conjunction is used to join two clauses together. You cannot use it with only one clause.

Note that whilst a conjunction may precede or intersect the two clauses, it must have two clauses to join regardless of the position. Interestingly enough, the proposal I quoted has 4 clauses- and 4 conjunctions. Admittedly, the 'therefore' could be seen as joining the entire proposal to it's conclusion... but that leaves us with three clauses and three conjunctions. We are three clauses short, just like you're a few cans short of a six-pack.

Now, my point again. We all make spelling and grammar mistakes. No one worthy of mention really cares. I've undoubtedly made a few of both in this post. It's not interfered with the conveyance of my message though. Making a mess of a proposal by throwing in 'whereas' at the start of 3/4 of the lines is quite different.

The persons proposal could quite easily have read as follows:

"Noting that the proposal "End Barbaric Puniushment" will most likely be passed, we feel that a clarification and extension should be in order. We propose that the original proposal is ammended to bring capital punishment within the domain of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. As such this will make it unlawful within the UN".

See? No worthless hanging conjunctions, still lots of big words so they look cool- and it conveys the message one dang of a lot clearer.

I feel though the point is to be lost on you.

Ahem... I also gather it can be used as a preposition, to the same effect as 'because' or 'considering'. Anyway, surely the issue is academic. I'd prefer to write my proposals with some variety and regard for good english, but I don't think that the use of 'whereas' is especially confusing.

Besides which, have you heard of dyslexia? And do you think good written English (I spell it with a capital letter, so what?) is the sole indicator of intelligence? Your disparaging replies to almost anyone who disagrees with you certainly indicate this.

If you look at that last sentence, you will see it doesn't 'flow' very nicely. Why is that, I wonder?

- Jordan

Why are you trying to turn this thread into one of those pansy arse little hissy fit threads about grammar or spelling?

I wasn't. Read my response more carefully and you'll realize I was pointing out an inconsistency in your logic. Anyways, as this thread is about using the word "Whereas," it seems inevitable that it will have something to do with grammar and/or spelling, don't you agree?

English is only capitalised at the beginning of a sentence or when talking about a group of people. The language english is not capitalised as a general form. Neither is spanish or german unless referring to the ethnic/country group.

Are you sure? Perhaps this is the case in the UK (which I assume is where you live, due to your use of an "s" in "capitalised" as opposed to the American "capitalized"), but I am fairly certain that in the United States, those terms are always capitalized. Unfortunately I do not have an American English grammar manual handy at the moment, but I am pretty sure about this.

As to the "whereas" issue: as an avid member of the Model UN club at school, I have written mock resolutions before and can assure you that the delegate manual says that "reasons" are all to begin with words/phrases like "whereas," "noting that," "recalling," "condemning," etc., and operative clauses begin with "be it resolved" or something to that effect. Again, I don't have that manual handy, but I am rather certain that those words are used with correct syntax.

Now, is it really necessary for the game? I'd say that it does add a nice touch of semi-realism and makes it look like the person who submitted it cares about the resolution and demonstrates invested time, but it's not that big of a deal. Obviously most people just don't know how to write it as per official UN guidelines, and that should not be held against them. As long as it makes sense, is easily readable, and isn't fraught with stupid errors, I think it's fine.

Ahem... I also gather it can be used as a preposition, to the same effect as 'because' or 'considering'. Anyway, surely the issue is academic. I'd prefer to write my proposals with some variety and regard for good english, but I don't think that the use of 'whereas' is especially confusing.

Besides which, have you heard of dyslexia? And do you think good written English (I spell it with a capital letter, so what?) is the sole indicator of intelligence? Your disparaging replies to almost anyone who disagrees with you certainly indicate this.

If you look at that last sentence, you will see it doesn't 'flow' very nicely. Why is that, I wonder?

- Jordan

It's not dyslexia... stop trying to make excuses. Research indicates that it's not only people here that are idiots- here's a quote on 'whereas' from elsewhere:

The use of whereas is often a clue that superfluous information, complexity, and awkward phrases will follow in an attempt to bolster credibility or influence. Now that's funny. Stunningly accurate too :)

The 'whereas' in the form that people are trying to use it... *still* isn't correct for the form. It's an archaism, somewhat like using words like 'ye' and 'thy' and so forth...

So it's incorrect in modern form by an stretch of the imagination, lacking in the appropiate degree of clauses. It's also incorrect in archaic form lacking in anything resembling the correct form.

The point's lost of you plebians though. I believe that the votes will continue to carry my point. Look at the past resolutions- some use 'whereas', they tend to be the ones that pass by the least voted. Note how many of the sucessful resolutions don't rely on bovine faeces to pad their argument and instead say things like: "Simply put"... that resolution won by more than 10,000 votes.

The people who suffer if they misuse archaisms in their proposals are the idiots who type them. People will not bother to read, will not bother to approve and won't vote for them. Simple as that :)

Ahem... I also gather it can be used as a preposition, to the same effect as 'because' or 'considering'. Anyway, surely the issue is academic. I'd prefer to write my proposals with some variety and regard for good english, but I don't think that the use of 'whereas' is especially confusing.

Besides which, have you heard of dyslexia? And do you think good written English (I spell it with a capital letter, so what?) is the sole indicator of intelligence? Your disparaging replies to almost anyone who disagrees with you certainly indicate this.

If you look at that last sentence, you will see it doesn't 'flow' very nicely. Why is that, I wonder?

- Jordan

It's not dyslexia... stop trying to make excuses. Research indicates that it's not only people here that are idiots- here's a quote on 'whereas' from elsewhere:

The use of whereas is often a clue that superfluous information, complexity, and awkward phrases will follow in an attempt to bolster credibility or influence. Now that's funny. Stunningly accurate too :)

The 'whereas' in the form that people are trying to use it... *still* isn't correct for the form. It's an archaism, somewhat like using words like 'ye' and 'thy' and so forth...

So it's incorrect in modern form by an stretch of the imagination, lacking in the appropiate degree of clauses. It's also incorrect in archaic form lacking in anything resembling the correct form.

The point's lost of you plebians though. I believe that the votes will continue to carry my point. Look at the past resolutions- some use 'whereas', they tend to be the ones that pass by the least voted. Note how many of the sucessful resolutions don't rely on bovine faeces to pad their argument and instead say things like: "Simply put"... that resolution won by more than 10,000 votes.

The people who suffer if they misuse archaisms in their proposals are the idiots who type them. People will not bother to read, will not bother to approve and won't vote for them. Simple as that :)

<sigh>

Yes, 'whereas' is archaic, overused, pretentions and bad english. But people might just be using it because they feel it's appropriate to the situation. It's no big deal! If you feel it's self-censoring, fine, why point it out?

I mentioned dyslexia in reference to your rather nasty dismissal of someone because they spelled 'arguing' incorrectly. But still... When I write, I don't think about clauses or infinitives or subjunctives; I simply write sentences that feel natural. Most dyslexics I know, aside from their difficulties with reading, writing or spelling, seem unable to detect harmony in a sentence. Thus, while the use of 'whereas' strikes me as jarring, ugly and feeble, it's entirely possible that the people writing such proposals imagine that it adds a touch of class. That's not pretension, that's an attempt at style, though a poor one...

'Plebians'? Well... I always spelled it 'plebeian,' but aside from that - what unutterable snobbery! I don't quote Turganov daily, or try to explain the Tractatus to my friends, and perhaps I don't often mention the haunting beauty of Anglo-Saxon poetry, but I'd beware of considering me, or my interests, common, and the same applies to the others here. I understand your points perfectly - otherwise, I would not try debating them!

- Jordan, Monarch of Archaeus

I think the point that was being made originally is that practically every UN proposal seems to have "WHEREAS" in it somewhere.

My own feelings on this are that it's because it's the only word of legalese most people know, so they should be applauded for making the effort to maintain some sense of decorum within the UN.

All of my proposals are modelled on Queensland Parliamentary Legislation, which you will notice is curiously void of phrases such as "WHEREAS" and "THEREFORE". Of course, I don't pretend to be fully conversant with the ins and outs of legislative interpretation in Australia etc, but I think it's much clearer than a lot of the US stuff I've read in my studies.

Back on topic, maybe if people found a word other than "WHEREAS" to use as the "Token Legalese Word", things would be a bit more interesting?

It's getting rediculous, argueing about a word.

This is a game (intended to be enjoyed by a variety of people) not an english lesson.

Obviously, English is not your strong point. Perhaps you're not from an English speaking country, perhaps you're just an idiot. We may never truly know.

The issue however is making sure that people such as yourself can understand what the UN is proposing. Can you honestly say that the proposal makes any kind of sense? Given you can't even spell 'arguing' I feel it's a fairly safe bet you're utterly destitute of comprehension.

My point is rather than using superflous and incorrect words, that people should concentrate on making their proposal clear, concise and effective. Something that your average idiots needs read several times before even the vaguest comprehension dawns upon them is less than worthless, it's counter productive.

But of course... you'd not be able to see that. Run along now, go and play with a golden book or something :)

Thank you for so eloquently informing me that i misspelt arguing. It is duly noted and i will never make such an horrendous mistake again.

May i also congratulate you on your superior command of the engish language. Please feel at liberty to point out any errors in this posting.
You misspelled the words misspelled, English, and I.

actually...misspelt is a word and is spelled correctly.
English is only capitalised at the beginning of a sentence or when talking about a group of people. The language english is not capitalised as a general form. Neither is spanish or german unless referring to the ethnic/country group.

I, however, needs to be capitalised.

This is great, normally I just get ignored. :) :D

hmmm.... is it me or is "capitalised" spelled incorrectly?.... :wink:

I thought "Whereas" means on the other hand or conversely or something similar to that effect.

Not necessarily.

It seems very odd to begin an argument with "On the otherhand" and you are the first to talk.

Indeed. If that were the only meaning of the word you would have a point.