Globalization

No, it was somewhere else, Maw and was something about a mute point, those two words were in it. Must have fallen off the end of a page and vanished.

You are right, SAAK, it is silent v doubtful. It must have been very silent because I have no idea what the point was.

X'd posts? I was replying to Elegran 21.58

I used the term a moot point earlier today on some thread or other.

I used it as meaning 'a debatable question'.

I hope it wasn't me using it out of context

Oh no! is that a passive aggressive hint that I shouldn't be here? really? just because i don't fall in with your ideas of posting. I am actually a person and not a troll

SAAK 21.23?

Mute means silent and moot means a non point.

That definition is about mute as well as moot. Nice definition of a mute one “When somebody in a group makes a good suggestion, but somehow nobody hears it.”

YOU do, Ana but I've a feeling that whoever posted saying they were making one was a bit mixed up between mute and moot. Can't find it now.

I do know the meaning of moot point, Elegran....(she said, faintly...)

eat yourselves.

It makes no sense because it is on the wrong thread. Someone on a different thread made a mute point - must be an American poster who pronounces mute as moot so thinks they are both the same word.

moot point definition

Oh dear, I stand corrected yet again...

It would make even less sense then ana because how can a non -word be moot?

I think you mean 'moot' saak. Otherwise your post makes no sense.

Globalisation is a made up word and it's mute.

Then you guess wrong I am afraid.

If you read the thread my argument is that globalisation in all its faces is a fact. That it brings huge challenges and that trying to fight it as a single nation state, where often the global enterprise has more wealth and power than the nation itself, requires cooperation between Nations like the Paris Agreement in order to mitigate against any damage to the environment or harm to its citizens.

Where on earth did that come from?? Ww has said nothing advocating one world government!

I cant see it, so I will have to guess.

I guess that you are in favour of it.

In which case, dosent that involve complete globalization?

Well the answer is contained within this thread- it is there for you to read. I can't understand why you asked it. I will be more than happy to discuss my conclusions though

You havent answered the question.

It is more a case of where I will go with it, than how I arrived at it, iyswim

ankers Blimey how on earth did you arrive at that question, haven't you read this thread?!

Are you in favour of one world one goverment, whitewave?

Well yes I suppose a computer system can be global, but it doesn't have anything to do with the central premise of my argument, not that it matters as global computerisation is quite important

More to be affected by any central failure? No going round to the country next door to borrow a cup of electricity if theirs has failed too?