DA Wood, you say:
"Wheeler, you have no idea what having a graduate degree from the Georgia Institute of Technology means, and another graduate dergree in mathematics from the University of Alabama at Huntsville means, and being a National Merit Finalist means, so I will not bother to explain."

Perhaps you could help me, then. I do know of a DA Wood who has degrees from Auburn, Georgia Tech, and the University of Alabama. He used to be with the Department of Technology at Northern Illinois University. He has published a number of papers on various subjects: Is that you?

There's an old story about the captains of a US Navy ship and a Royal Navy ship arguing. "If it wasn't for us," says the American captain, "you'd all be speaking German." Quite possibly," says the British captain, "but then, if it wasn't for us, you'd all be speaking Spanish."

I know that some Americans are a bit sensitive about being late for the two world wars: perhaps that's why they seem so determined to start the third...

DAW is one of those internet users whose watchword is, "You might have a PhD but I have read an article on Wikipedia." He seems harmless enough, though a tad irritating at times. I can't, I have to say, take him very seriously but he does provide me with entertainment when I am trying to avoid doing something more important...

Another DA Wood line: "People have laughed at me..."

Surely not!

On "thus" versus "thusly": although for many people the longer form is unnecessary, and its use seems to have originated as a kind of joke, many people do use it without irony. My question is this: does DA Wood think it is an exception to his own rules about preferring the shorter of two choices? As he said on another thread: "Once again, we see the case of a longer word taking the place of a shorter word that does make sense and is unambiguous.
As Dr. McCoy said to Commander Spock, "Where is the logic in that?"

Personally, I cannot see the reason for overlooking the question of "efficient" vs. "inefficient". Why should someone going back to dig in the 14trh century when RIGHT NOW we should know which one is efficient and which is inefficient?

It is seen that in American English, we do have a stronger trend toward efficient expressions than inefficient ones, though I am impatient and I do not see it happening rapidly enough."

If he is impatient for the spread of more efficient forms then surely he should promote "thus"...

I didn't say that his father's nationality was relevant. I merely quoted their Lordships in the House of Lords appeal. I suspect that they are all dead now so it won't be possible for you to take the matter up with them.

I notice that you have once again resorted to personal abuse: a common sign of a weak argument.

You really shuld check your facts. William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) was not an Canadian. He was, in fact, an American citizen who falsely obtained a British passport. Here is the opening of the judgment of the House of Lords in his appeal against conviction:

"He was born in the United States in 1906, the son of a naturalised American citizen and thereby became himself a natural-born American citizen. At the age of three he was brought to Ireland and stayed there until about 1921 when he came to England, where he resided until 1939. On July 4, 1933, he made application for a British passport, describing himself as a British subject by birth having been born in Galway, and was granted the passport as such British subject by birth, for a period of five years. On Sept. 24, 1938, he applied for, and was granted, a renewal of that passport for a further period of one year. On Aug. 4, 1939, he made a further application for the further renewal for one year of that passport, and the passport was again renewed to expire on July 1, 1940. On both occasions he described himself as a British subject who had not lost that national status. The purpose of the last renewal was stated to be for "holiday purposes." At some date after Aug. 24, 1939, he left England and travelled to Germany where he remained throughout the war. On his arrest in Germany in 1945, a document was found in his possession showing that he had been engaged by the German Broadcasting Corporation as from Sept. 18, 1939, as an editor, speaker and announcer of news in English."

Re Canada and treason. I think you need to look up the difference bwtween British citizen and British subject.

Yes, I am saying that the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) cannot strike down laws for unconstitutionality. When the Human Rights Act was introduced it included a section allowing courts to declare a law incompatible with it. The legislators did not go so far as to allow courts to strike down laws. From: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/humanRights/articlesAndTranscripts/FK_SmithInstitute_07.pdf

"Jack Straw [then Home Secretary] emphasised from the outset that higher courts “could make a Declaration [of Incompatibility] that, subsequently, Ministers propose and Parliament accepts, should not be accepted..."

Re Sark: The people of the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey (The Channel Islands) and the Isle of Man, are British citizens, as I said above. They do not have all the rights of British citizenship in relation to te european Union, though. The UK Accession Treaty specifically states British citizens who are connected with the Channel Islands and Isle of Man (i.e. considered "Channel Islanders and Manxmen") do not have the right to live in other European Union countries (except the Republic of Ireland, through the long-established Common Travel Area) unless they have connections through descent or residence in the United Kingdom.

You ask: "Even if their soverign is Queen Elizabeth II ?" Having Her Majesty as sovereign doess not automatically confer British citizenship. If it did citizens of the following countries, all of which have her as monarch, would be British citizens: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, Barbados, Grenada, Solomon Islands, St Lucia and The Bahamas.

There are 14 British overseas territories, which are: British Indian Ocean Territory, Gibraltar, Bermuda, the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, British Antarctic Territory, St Helena and its dependencies (Ascension and Tristan da Cunha), Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Anguilla, the Pitcairn Group of Islands, and the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus.

You say: "there is nothing left in South America or Central America anymore". NB Belize is in Central America.

Not that it should matter, but since you ask, I received my law degree from London Metropolitan University.

I think you are a bit confused about how the English legal system works and, I would imagine, have no idea how Scottish law works. I realise that anyone with access to the internet thinks they can become an expert without going to the trouble of actually studying a subject but if you are going to make such odd assertions perhaps it would help if you were to declare your sources and authorities.

In English law we don't talk about 'supreme law' in the way you seem to be suggesting. If what you mean is that parliament is sovereign then that is true, to a point. In practice, though, parliament has bound itself to the higher authority of European law and the European Convention on Human Rights. The constitution is based, however, on the notion that parliament cannot bind its successors so, strictly, it would be possible for parliament to change that (though unlikely to happen).

I don't know what your understanding of the Constitution of the United Kingdom is. It is certainly very different from that of the US. We have no Constitutional court and laws cannot be declared unconstitutional.

Murder and manslaughter are not defined by statute in English law though it is true that various statutes exist that affect prosecutions and punishment for those offences. Even statute law, though, is subject to development by judges as courts interpret the law. That is why we have a system of precedent.

There are huge areas of civil law that are not codified at all by statute; most tort laws, for example.

I'm happy to carry on this debate but, as I mentioned elsewhere, you don't strengthen your argument by being abusive.