And there are often wedding guests that can act as witnesses.

And you can't sell them either . Life can be frustrating.

I bow to your command of the alban pentameter. It scans like a belter.

Sincere apologies for my earlier outburst if it was felt to be offensive. I have a thing about sellotape, being a strong believer in fixing things with string.

On the other hand, terms such as "laddie" and "Rabbie", although mildly offensive, are really pathetic. Their use should be moderated, preferably with the controlling qualities of alcohol.

" I think I've heard one of my Scottish friends say something like that before"

You know my mum? :-) She thought it was poetic. (from Robert F. Burns, I believe)

But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane
In proving foresight may be vain
The best laid schemes o' Mice and Men
Gang aft a-glape
An lea'e us nought tae fix the pain
But fucking sellotape

It's called fucking Sellotape ya yank-sassenach fannybaws! (At least that's what my mum calls it.)

"negative" has linguistic and mathematical usage. My example used the former. I don't think either usage applies to the statement, "you can't prove a negative", which is why I asked for more clarity. I'm guessing the original poster was talking about being able to prove that something doesn't exist. (e.g. there are no sea dragons).

"you can't prove a negative"

The sun sets in the west.
The sun doesn't rise in the west.

These are equivalent statements presumably requiring the same level of proof to substantiate. I think you need to be clearer about what you mean.

Your response would have been kinder if you'd pointed out that "FOI" is the appropriate term in the UK. And then we could have judged the magnitude of the parent poster's error. (Miniscule would be my opinion.)

All the quotes in various media releases come from already constructed quotes in the Norfolk Constabulary's press release. http://www.norfolk.police.uk/newsevents/newsstories/2012/july/ueadatabreachinvestigation.aspx Is there no substantial publicly available report behind this? “However, as a result of our enquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct enquiries." This suggests there is some evidence of "methods common". But no information as to what this evidence is. “There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.” And can we infer there is also no evidence to to suggest anyone not working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved either? Either the police know more than they are letting on, or they know pretty much nothing at all.

It has a pretty good horse racing section, or so I'm told.

And probably a similar percentage of homeopathic practitioners are convinced of the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. I'm agnostic on the existence, causes, and effects of global warming, and I hope my opinions won't be influenced by a consensus among a largely self-defined group of experts.

"liberties are being systematically removed" "To fix this problem," "we can only enforce them at our borders" You seem to be saying that liberty is about enforcing laws at the border. That's an interesting take. But it strikes me as weird.

I guess you'll be cheering then when they extradite you to Anaplosia where it is a crime to write the word "blurring" as it is believed to cause anyone reading it to get hives.