I must congratulate you, THM, on trying valiantly to deflect these questions, it's certainly brave.
During your 30 seconds of laughter did you consider phrases like "the lock accepted the key" for example. This is really beside the point because you very obviously ignored the second part and main part of that first quote. I'll say it again (but perhaps you'll miss it because you're laughing so hard) if I apply to the Conservative Party (in RL) and they take my application and send me my membership card, are you seriously going to suggest that I have neither been accepted nor denied membership of that Party? I mean, this is what you said earlier. So do you stand by this rather odd suggestion?
What about the other suggestion that there is no decision to be made on membership application. I don't really see that it's inane to wonder how accepting an application is not a decision. Earlier you said that "We accept all new members unless we have reason not to." So if you have a reason not to you deny the membership. In which case, one wonders, how is there not a decision being made by at least someone?
So is it that Herbal makes these decisions herself or do you have a thread in your sub-forum in which you all vote on whether to accept an application? It's all very well saying that she simply follows party convention but when there is a decision to make does she make an executive decision or does it go to committee?
I don't think any of this is desperate, it's simply trying to understand the rather odd things you've been saying.
And lastly, if everything works by vote and all applications are accepted, what would you be able to do in the situation that, say, 10 new members sign up who are or become right wing and basically take over your party? Or is this also inane or sad or desperate?
EDIT: And you can ignore this if you want because it really isn't the major point, I just thought it was interesting. Your list of meanings that you quote earlier for "accept" from which you conclude that a door cannot accept because it has no conscious decision, is very interesting. See, just out of curiosity I did a quick Google search and found that your list of definitions was copied and pasted from it. (here if anyone is interested http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=5...=Search&meta=)
. But what I found most interesting is that your list stops just before this entry:
"be designed to hold or take; "This surface will not take the dye""
Would it be inane to point out that this definition certainly seems to apply the word to a non-sentient object that isn't capable of consciously deciding something. Would it be wrong to suggest that you left it out on purpose because it rather undermines your argument? Meh, so long as you answer the main points I don't really care.
EDIT AGAIN: Just noticed that on the Groups page (http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/prof...editusergroups
) it has Alasdair down as your only Group Leader, so is he accepting the membership requests at the moment?