The many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XVIII

[Farm Boy]

I'm just overthinking it. Carry on!

 

[salty mud]

Make the new thread then; then we will carry on.

 

[Farm Boy]

Come again?

 

[salty mud]

If you would notice we are over 1000 posts. Since you made the 1000th reply, you are obliged to make the new thread.

 

[NickyJ]

If you would notice we are over 1000 posts. Since you made the 1000th reply, you are obliged to make the new thread.

Actually, the person who made the thousandth post gets the new thread, which means it's Flying Pig who gets the new thread.

By the way:

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't know how.

 

[salty mud]

Crazy new-fangled forum rules. Anyway:

 

[madviking]

Why? andcl

For the same reason 'ant' comes before 'anteater'.

 

[say1988]

For the same reason 'ant' comes before 'anteater'.

But unless there is something specific about "v" in this case, that is an inaccurate comparison as in your example the term ends where both continue here. If the "v" is treated normally the correct alphabetical order would be.

George H....
George v....

However both would follow "George" as in your "ant" vs "ant eater" example

 

[madviking]

I was told that Supreme Court cases were ordered by the name of the petitioner, so e.g. Josephs v. US would come before Josephson v. Adams, since many cases are referred to by just the petitioner, e.g. Brown, Plessy, Gideon, etc.

I don't know if this stylistic norm is the same in Australia.

 

[Arakhor]

We await Flying Pig starting Thread 19 then.

 

[madviking]

Already done.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=464337

 

[Arakhor]

Oooo!

 

[say1988]

I was told that Supreme Court cases were ordered by the name of the petitioner, so e.g. Josephs v. US would come before Josephson v. Adams, since many cases are referred to by just the petitioner, e.g. Brown, Plessy, Gideon, etc.

I don't know if this stylistic norm is the same in Australia.

Now that is an explanation.

I don't know any treatment of them, but your previous "explanation" made no sense because you ignored the operative part, that only the first name is considered. Which I assumed was what the original question was entirely about.

 

[madviking]

Sorry about that.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, that probably makes sense. The Australian Guide to Legal Citation is 320 pages long and doesn't say anything about it, though, which is annoying for something supposedly comprehensive. I guess you'd only go by the defendants/respondents when the plaintiffs/appellants are identical.