Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> > OK. And? A civil servant fits none of these definitions.
> You don't think she qualifies as "one actively engaged in conducting the
> business of a government"? You don't think she is "a person engaged in
> party politics as a profession"? I think she very clearly qualifies
> under at least those two definitions.
First of all, I don't think that hunting through dictionaries until you find a
definition you like proves anything, other than one's obsession with something.
And secondly, no, I don't think she's actively engaged in conducting the business
of a government. She works *for* the government, she is not *part* of the
government. I realize that under the Jacksonian system of "to the victor goes the
spoils" model of civil service, you might blur the line, but under the Westminster
system the line is much clearer. And since we're talking about a Canadian civil
servant, you're bound by our definition on this one. If you insist on trying to
apply your idiosyncratic definition, I can only assume you are reading more into
this than it deserves, in which case, as I've already suggested, leave that to the
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
“Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick
himself up and continue on” – Winston Churchill
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!