Collogue:George W. Bush

The past tense am past parteeciple o rin is run or ran.

steyed hauds better wi the phonology. steyt maks on he boonced aboot.

A 'yett' is uised for tae lat the kye oot a field - a howp ye'll lift that yet. -- Anon

Fan ye see that sort o thing, please fix it. It juist taks a meenute. -- Derek Ross 05:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

A ken, but some fowk disna like thair darg bein editit. Thon wey thay can decide for themsels tae follae mensufu wicins or cairy obleevious tae the fact that whit they'v written is aften meaninless.

-It disna maiter if thay dinna lik it. If ye dinna agree, jist chynge it. If thare's that much airgiement oer it, talk aboot it. A think the mair we dae airticles, the closer we'll come thegither in oor spellin an grammar. This is the problem, the leid isna standardisit in the same wey as Inglis an we dae speak it differently an hae probable neer learnt tae screive it! Onyway, A'm gonna be jynin this soon an a'll eik ma ain airticles tae. Guid tae see it thrivin - better than the Gaelic ane onywey! --Ailean

dichtit jottins

"Whit the hell aw that wis aboot" wis ma jottins aboot the airticle. 84.135 haed pitten in a lot o stuff that A thocht wis gey funnie, but that A kent didna hae onie place in an encyclopædia. A commentit it oot acause A wantit it keepit but fowk shuidna see it in the airticle. Ma comment abuin that wis anent whit A haed pitten in in its place. A wis sayin that A dinna feel masel capable o bein NPOV aboot Bush an onie ither bodie is walcome tae try.

Here's ma jottins that wis dichtit:

<!-- A micht hae makkit this waur. At laest it wis clear it wis a "joke" (the'r no muckle funnie aboot whit Bush's daein, A ken) afore, nou it's juist a leftie's (i.e. my) rant. Oniebodie at wants tae NPOV this is walcome. An A cuidna dree daein awa wi whit's ablo, sae A'v makkit it aa jottins juist. Mendor 23:38, 29 Dizember 2005 (UTC)

George is a compassionate Christan that's ettle in life is tae dae awa wi rogue states that hauds fowk in the jyle indefinite athoot trial, torturs an abuises preesoners, pits bairns an ithers tae daith for crimes, kidnaps fowk an hauds thaim in saicret jyles athoot ony ither fowk haein ken o't or juist hauds thaim in the jyle for iver an aye athoot chance o reformin an gittin oot. He canna thole fowk that tells lees for tae invade ither kintras or thaim that uises chemical wappons like sulphur agin sodgers on the grund.-->

Mendor 23:38, 29 Dizember 2005 (UTC)

How dae ye skreive "sarcastic" in Scots, Mendor? :}80.192.59.202 14:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sarcastic.

84.135.223.14 08:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Proven Wrong

"This haes been proven wrong, monie times in the past." I'm not a Scots speaker (forbye Ah ken mair nor a wee bittie Scots), but that sentence doesn't make much sense to me. Is it trying to say that extraordinary rendetion doesn't happen (i.e. the accusation has been proven wrong) or that extraordinary rendition itself is wrong? I don't follow the language there.

Bazza

A'm fair shuir it means tae threap that extraordinary rendition disna happen. Gin A hae the time A'll try an soorce thae bits aboot extraordinary rendition. A'm mair interestit in the claim that the US disna haud fowk indefinite athoot trial in Guantánamo... no shuir hou a body can forsay thon. Mendor 19:55, 4 Julie 2006 (UTC)

im fair certain frae channel 4 news that maist o thon fowk are still there, an nae trial has bin gied tae ony o thim! Even fer a Bush supporter, the claim that this isnae the case is akin tae the denial o global warming... raither a question o faith than a statement o the blatantly obvious, ie fowk are still biding in Cuba and dinnae seem tae of had a trial! Surely its fer the opponents o this internationally presumed fact (in newspapers an tv) tae have tae offer proof, as fowk wis brocht there and tae public knowledge, dinnae seem yet in the main pairt tae hae been freed or gien a trial?80.192.59.202 21:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)