|
|
Post by oldetowne on Feb 8, 2007 6:45:04 GMT -5
After about seven years of grand list increases of less than one percent per year (excluding reval years where the apples become oranges), does anyone expect a bigger increase this year? With all of the time and effort that has been devoted to economic development, Silas Deane revitalization, facade loans, etc., one would think that we might break that elusive 1% barrier this time. Sadly, if we do, I would attribute the lion's share of it to the "personal property" component of the grand list, i.e., our cars.
Other towns and cities have posted their new figures, so ours should be out soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Feb 8, 2007 8:43:25 GMT -5
The word has it that 2006 Grand List will not be grand at all; it is supposedly going NEGATIVE!
We'll just have to be patient and see.
OT, what do you think and feel about the Gov's Budget proposal?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Feb 8, 2007 9:31:51 GMT -5
I had to check the back issues of the Courant to see if I missed the article saying that Gov. Rell had switched her affiliation to Democratic.
On the pragmatic side, I can see the logic behind her proposal and it certainly is politically bold. It is absurd to think, however, that the 10% increase in my state income tax bill is going to throw enough education grant money into Wethersfield to create an equal reduction in my car taxes and real estate taxes.
Pragmatism aside, I am very disappointed that yet another Republican governor is unable to confront the spending side of the state budget and focuses entirely on beefing up the revenue side.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Feb 8, 2007 12:37:16 GMT -5
...yet another Republican governor is unable to confront the spending side of the state budget and focuses entirely on beefing up the revenue side. [/color] |
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Feb 9, 2007 3:45:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Feb 9, 2007 9:23:50 GMT -5
Whatever! Kindred spirits? http://www.ctconservative.blogspot.com/Been there... done that. "Conservative" and "Party" are certainly not oxymorons. If you refer to what Bill Clinton or Anna Nicole Smith might consider a party, perhaps, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by standish on Feb 9, 2007 15:40:03 GMT -5
What do you call John DeStefano in a dress?
Jodi Rell.
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Feb 10, 2007 17:20:36 GMT -5
What do you call John DeStefano in a dress? Jodi Rell.
What should you call Jodi Rell
be it in a dress, slacks and a suit?
The Honorable M. Jodi Rell,
Governor, State of Connecticut
Get over it.
This is CT, 2007
Anyway, what time and place would you be most comfortable and happy in? |
|
|
|
Post by standish on Feb 10, 2007 18:02:41 GMT -5
Predictable. As a good, country club Republican, I knew you'd rise to the occasion (I presume the description fits?) If you're so concerned about cheap shots, how about the last line of your comment, and a number of other ad hominems you've levied in my direction. I guess that's o.k. when you're in the closet and nobody knows who you are.
What standards does our honorable governor pursue? The Democratic agenda of tax/spend/more government? Hiding her agenda during the campaign?
It's a joke. As you suggest, lighten up. Your recently discovered levity would become you, if the shoe fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Feb 10, 2007 18:58:15 GMT -5
Trolling are we,
dear chap?
I'll bite:
yours was quite
'predictable' too.
And,
how dare you call me
a "country club Republican!"
"Ad hominens" [sic],
in deed!
Bent are we?
Builds character(s).
Really,
you just seem to be
SO unhappy and
uncomfortable with the
state of things.
Just trying to
understand you
better,
dear boy
(levity!).
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Feb 10, 2007 21:37:02 GMT -5
And,
how dare you call me
a "country club Republican!"
"Ad hominens" [sic],
in deed!
"Ad hominems" is the truncated plural for ad hominem, which is a personal attack, or one directed to the person, not the issue. Another shoe. You now have a pair!(more levity and no "sic" necessary.) |
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Feb 10, 2007 21:51:04 GMT -5
Love to see you get self-righteous!
The [sic] was for your sick spelling: "ad hominens" as in "number of other ad hominens you've levied in my direction". Take a look. I would have used leveled (or levelled) instead of levied but poetic license rules here.
Get a good nite's sleep!
p/s: I knew what it meant, even with the misspelling. But, then again, you knew I knew.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Feb 11, 2007 7:13:35 GMT -5
Love to see you get self-righteous!
I have been accused of this fault before, but, usually when it applied.
The [sic] was for your sick spelling: "ad hominens" as in "number of other ad hominens you've levied in my direction". Take a look. I would have used leveled (or levelled) instead of levied but poetic license rules here.
Get a good nite's sleep!p/s: I knew what it meant, even with the misspelling. But, then again, you knew I knew. Check your Latin (and your dictionary): It's 'hominem'; not 'hominum'. Otherwise, my explanation of the "license" I took with the truncated plural should have sufficed.
Hope your nite (sic) was restful.
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Feb 11, 2007 10:29:39 GMT -5
standish,
 ,
If I worry you,
apologies.
I worry about you,
poor boy.
Either your spectacles
are failing you,
or
your browser needs
a kick in the fonts.
I quote your misspelling
twice
and still
you claim I have
writ
'hominum'.
You wrote:
"'Ad hominems' is the truncated plural for ad hominem". The last time I checked a truncation is shorter than the original. The last time I checked "ad hominem" (despite its adjectival ancestry) is being used by you as a noun; the addition of the "s" makes it a plural (You wrote: "a number of other ad hominens"). How do you justify calling your construction a truncation in American English?
Alas,
time spares
no one.
Nite (of Norse origin and colloquial variant of night)
falls so
soon.
Sigh!
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Feb 11, 2007 11:57:21 GMT -5
You wrote:
"'Ad hominems' is the truncated plural for ad hominem". The last time I checked a truncation is shorter than the original. The last time I checked "ad hominem" (despite its adjectival ancestry) is being used by you as a noun; the addition of the "s" makes it a plural (You wrote: "a number of other ad hominens"). How do you justify calling your construction a truncation in American English?
Mea Culpa: I should have said that "ad hominems" is a truncation of the fuller phrase, 'ad hominem attacks', to be more accurate. Perhaps now you understand.
Nite (of Norse origin and colloquial variant of night)
Actually, 'night' is of Norse origin, for the Norse goddess Nott (with umlat). The full etymology is significantly more complex and fascinating: night
O.E. niht (W.Saxon neaht, Anglian nÊht, neht), the vowel indicating that the modern word derives from oblique cases (gen. nihte, dat. niht), from P.Gmc. *nakht- (cf. O.H.G. naht, O.Fris., Du., Ger. nacht, O.N. natt, Goth. nahts), from PIE *nok(w)t- (cf. Gk. nuks "a night," L. nox, O.Ir. nochd, Skt. naktam "at night," Lith. naktis "night," O.C.S. nosti, Rus. noch', Welsh henoid "tonight"). For spelling with -gh- see fight.
"The fact that the Aryans have a common name for night, but not for day (q.v.), is due to the fact that they reckoned by nights." [Weekley]
Cf. Ger. Weihnachten "Christmas." In early times, the day was held to begin at sunset, so O.E. monanniht "Monday night" was the night before Monday, or what we would call Sunday night. Nightclub "club open at night" is from 1894; nightspot in the same sense is from 1936. Nightstick (1887) so called because it was carried for night patrols. To work nights preserves the O.E. genitive of time. Night shift is attested from 1710 in the sense of "garment worn by a woman at night" (see shift); meaning "gang of workers employed after dark" is from 1839. Night soil "excrement" (1770) is so called because it was removed (from cesspools, etc.) after dark.
Nite is a simplified 'arbitrary respelling of night, attested from 1931.'(Source: Online Etymology Dictionary). Thus, my (sic) reference.
|
|
