Where have some British Druids gone wrong and were they ever right?
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
Some modern British pseudo-druids like Rollo Maughfling and John
Rothwell (aka King Arthur) hang around the new-age fringe, celebrating
solstices at Stonehenge and annoying the archaeologists with their
historically baseless rituals, theathrical clothing and props such as
Excalibur swords rescued from junk shops. We all know these types. The
loud-mouth recidivist nuisances most often found drunk and engaged in
a great deal of nonsense and divisiveness, usually in pubs or on
websites such as this. Others like McGrath are more sinister and
merely use druidry as a veneer to cover their racism. On a more
civilised plane, more respectable druids preside over the Gorsedd in
white robes, carrying out rituals which have been developed through a
combination of occult understanding and guidance. These are not
mentally ill drunks like the first lot but are they any more correct?
What was a druid, who were the historic druids and what do they have
to do with the druids of today? The Queen of England has been a druid
since 1946 when she was inducted in the Welsh Gorsedd of Bards, which
organises the National Eisteddfod, and the present Archbishop of
Canterbury followed suit in 2002. Two fine examples of parasites
there. One claims a Kingdom and the other claims souls. In the 16th
century, scholars wrongly credited druids with founding Cambridge
University and, in the late 19th it was a test case involving a druid,
William Price, that established the legality of cremation.
The historic druids first emerged two millenniums ago around the Iron
Age and evidence which remains of their existence and rituals is
unreliable. Pliny is a mine of misinformation and Caesar, the only
writer who might have seen the original druids, is an unusually
devious and self –interested witness. There is not, it transpires, a
single fact, artefact or image that can be securely related to druidry
before the early modern period. We know nothing about the original
druids at all. So when people talk about ‘ritual’ and ‘ceremony’ they
are just blowing so much hot air if they are claiming it is in any way
true to what the original druids would have practiced. The truth is we
do not know and we cannot know.
What the classical sources have left is a legacy of contradictory
impressions. In some accounts the druids are ferocious warrior priests
screaming abuse at invading Romans, in others brutal practitioners of
human sacrifice or, yet again, nature-loving wise men associated with
oak groves, mistletoe and some sort of symbolic egg. From the 16th
century onwards, succeeding generations picked and mixed these
elements according to their own preoccupations just as in Europe and
America today many druid orders are merely a front for racist
association. Druidry became by turns a precursor of Christianity, a
polygamous pagan cult and the basis of modern Germany, depending on
who employed it’s evocative imagery. Then in 1740, the antiquarian
William Stukeley added one of the most potent elements to the cocktail
by crediting the druids with building Stonehenge. It was always a
contentious claim, virtually disproved by the time druids began to
celebrate the solstice there in the early 20th century, but it is
immovably fixed in the British national imagination and indeed in
modern folklore.
Stukeley’s book, Stonehenge, ushered in the druid century, a flowering
of scholarship, art and poetry in England. Blake’s Jerusalem and
Wordsworth’s Prelude both feature druids and in 1774 a musical, Masque
of the Druids by John Fisher, ran for several months at Covent Garden.
Such widespread enthusiasm sometimes made historians extravagant with
the facts and liberal with the truth. William Borlase’s account of
Cornish druidry of 1754 added five-sided shoes to the traditional
outfit, and gave a lurid account of nude druidesses and sacrificial
orgies that did wonders for antiquarian interest in Cornwall. How true
to the memory of these nutty liars some of our modern brethern are?
The great transforming influence, however, was Edward Williams. An
amateur scholar, failed shopkeeper and enthusiastic laudanum addict,
Williams also transformed himself, becoming Lolo Morganwg or Glamorgan
Eddie. In this guise he produced the outline for a History of British
Bards and Druids as well as quantities of supposedly druidic verse –
all of which, it transpired only much later, he had written himself.
By the time the extent of the McGrath-like forgeries were fully
recognised in the 1920’s, it was too late to untangle him from
history. The improvised ceremony that he first held on Primrose Hill
at the autumn equinox in 1792 had grown into the modern Gorsedd of
Bards.
Nowhere else in Europe, with the exception of Brittany, which has its
own tradition, did the modern image of druidry take root as it did in
Britain. While romantic philosophy helped create the athmosphere the
Act of Union was the main impetus. Before 1707 the idea of Britain as
a united island was as mythical or metaphorical a construct as the
druids themselves. Afterwards, druidry offered a shared history and a
pedigree for that elusive concept, “Britishness”. Despite which,
Scottish, Welsh and English druids were always significantly different
and to some extent at cross-purposes. The Scots, who had adopted a
druid history first and independently in the 16th century, dropped it
when druids lost their exclusivity and became popular in Wales, where
they were taken up late but enthusiastically in their most benign
guise as wise, ancestral bards.
It was in England, though, in the King’s Arms in Poland Street in
Soho, a pub that survives today, that the decisive step was taken from
simply studying ancient druids to becoming modern ones. Here in 1781
Henry Hurle founded the Ancient Order of Druids, which still
flourishes and once included Winston Churchill among its number. The
Ancient Order started as little more than a gentlemen’s drinking club.
Later on, revived druidry often took the form of friendly societies,
and Georgian druids spent much of their time drinking toasts to each
other and organising burial clubs.
With the passage of time, however, the empire grew and England
increasingly dominated Britain. The druids’ image as a fiercely
independent native race resistant to occupying powers became more
appealing to the Welsh and less attractive to the English, who began
to go off druids and to emphasise the savagery and inefficiency of
“primitive” peoples, preferring to see themselves as latter-day
Romans.
The first recorded ‘solstice watcher’ at Stonehenge was the Earl of
Caernarvon. Fired, presumably, by William Stukeley’s 18th century
research into the alignment of the stones, he travelled there in 1860
for the midsummer sunrise, only to find himself totally alone. By the
1880’s, though, thousands would gather at the site, most of them
locals, many unruly. It was not until 1912 that druids first turned up
on midsummer eve to perform their rites.
Today Stonehenge is a melee of drunk and stoned revellers with only a
sympolic ritual performed by those who try to recreate what intuition
and reason combined inform them may have been the original Druid
format. The ‘theatre’ folk like ‘King Arthur’ turn up to avail of the
attention and free cider and cigarettes which they claim as a ‘tax’
off unsuspection newbies.
An Coibhi Drui
wrote:
Yeah, read it all before, Joe, so what's new, what gives ???
An Coibhi Drui
Now I'm off into my own private darkroom, so see y'all later...
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
They cut off your electricity for non payment of the bill again? I
hope you are not trying to make out you have a dark room in your two
roomed hovel? Remember when you were lying to everyone here and
describing your 'Paladial home' you never mentioned a 'private dark
room'. You see a liar needs a good memory McGrath and you are just
another bum like 'Lolo' or is that 'Rollo'. How all the sad old birds
are so similar? And how they all end up lonely old drug addicts, alone
in their hovels.
An Coibhi Drui
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another lie. There is no loft in any of the houses in the Dominick
Street terrace.
http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=412546
There is barely room for the water tank and the rats.
stonehengeio
Sizzle Flambé
>> On Jul 6, 8:42 pm, "Cormac Mac Carthaigh" wrote:
>>> The great transforming influence, however, was Edward Williams. An
>>> amateur scholar, failed shopkeeper and enthusiastic laudanum addict,
> [...] another bum like 'Lolo' [...]
"Lolo" once might have been a typo. "Lolo" twice is ignorance.
Iolo with an I as in India. Short for Iorweth, Welsh form of Edward.
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
Yes, ignorance is certainly in evidence from the McGrath Camp. It
appears you are attempting to flamebait by calling me
'ignorant' (ignorant with an I, for ignorant) over your perceived
mispelling of the name Iolo Morganwg, is that it? I will say it again,
Iolo Morganwg.
Well, I suggest you check the spelling yourself.
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
http://www.myhometown-schools.co.uk/school_members.aspx?schoolid=48911
Sizzle Flambé
wrote:
That verifies what I just told you. Iolo, *not* Lolo.
Sizzle Flambé
wrote:
> On Jul 7, 3:51 pm, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 3:59 pm, "Cormac Mac Carthaigh" wrote:
>>>> On Jul 6, 8:42 pm, "Cormac Mac Carthaigh" wrote:
>>>>> The great transforming influence, however, was Edward Williams. An
>>>>> amateur scholar, failed shopkeeper and enthusiastic laudanum addict,
>>>>> Williams also transformed himself, becoming Lolo Morganwg [...]
>>> [...] another bum like 'Lolo' [...]
>> "Lolo" once might have been a typo. "Lolo" twice is ignorance.
>> Iolo with an I as in India. Short for Iorweth, Welsh form of Edward.
> http://www.myhometown-schools.co.uk/school_members.aspx?schoolid=48911
Congratulations, you managed to find a *schoolchild* who made
the same error.
> http://209.85.135.132/search?q=3Dcache:SE9XksPSxIAJ:ads.ahds.ac.uk/ca...
The actual PDF has "Iolo", and the graphic-to-text converter
mistakenly reads the image of the "I" as "l", a common error
in PDF-to-HTML conversion. Similarly, in the next file:
> http://books.google.ie/books?id=3DUViEbWQOSd0C&pg=3DPA135&lpg=3DPA135...
Despite what the search field says, the highlighted text
clearly says "Iolo" with a capital "I". The scan misread it.
So apparently you never even looked at the last source you found.
On Jul 7, 12:01 pm, Cormac Mac Carthaigh <guydecerv...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 7, 3:51 pm, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 3:59 pm, "Cormac Mac Carthaigh" wrote:
>>>> On Jul 6, 8:42 pm, "Cormac Mac Carthaigh" wrote:
>>>>> The great transforming influence, however, was Edward Williams. An
>>>>> amateur scholar, failed shopkeeper and enthusiastic laudanum addict,
>>>>> Williams also transformed himself, becoming Lolo Morganwg [...]
>>> [...] another bum like 'Lolo' [...]
>> "Lolo" once might have been a typo. "Lolo" twice is ignorance.
>> Iolo with an I as in India. Short for Iorweth, Welsh form of Edward.
> http://www.myhometown-schools.co.uk/school_members.aspx?schoolid=48911
Congratulations, you managed to find a *schoolchild* who made
the same error.
The actual PDF has "Iolo", and the graphic-to-text converter
mistakenly reads the image of the "I" as "l", a common error
in PDF-to-HTML conversion. Similarly, in the next file:
Despite what the search field says, the highlighted text
clearly says "Iolo" with a capital "I". The scan misread it.
So apparently you never even looked at the last source you found.
linkin
>
> The actual PDF has "Iolo", and the graphic-to-text converter
> mistakenly reads the image of the "I" as "l", a common error
> in PDF-to-HTML conversion. Similarly, in the next file:
>
>
> Despite what the search field says, the highlighted text
> clearly says "Iolo" with a capital "I". The scan misread it.
>
> So apparently you never even looked at the last source you found.
No Sue, I don't really care about what makie-up name some McGrath-like
lunatic called himself. A forger and a liar!
Sizzle Flambé
>>> On Jul 7, 3:51 pm, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 6, 8:42 pm, "Cormac Mac Carthaigh" wrote:
>>>>>>> The great transforming influence, however, was Edward Williams. An
>>>>>>> amateur scholar, failed shopkeeper and enthusiastic laudanum addict,
>>>>>>> Williams also transformed himself, becoming Lolo Morganwg [...]
>>>> Iolo with an I as in India. Short for Iorweth, Welsh form of Edward.
> [...] I don't really care about what makie-up name some [...]
> lunatic called himself.
You've missed noticing that it *wasn't* a "makie-up name", but the
actual Welsh form of his own name, no less than Sean=John in Ireland.
In a time when speaking Welsh was officially discouraged in schools
(classes were English-only, uttering any word of Welsh would get the
sign "WELSH NOT" hung around a student's neck), to revert to a Welsh
name and write Welsh poetry was a symbolic act of cultural rebellion.
Meanwhile, it is you yourself who are making up names like "Lolo",
and blithely stating that you do not care for historical accuracy.
Rasputina
Oh yes it was a Makie-up name. His real name was Edward Williams
Sizzle Flambé
> In a time when speaking Welsh was officially discouraged in schools
> (classes were English-only, uttering any word of Welsh would get the
> sign "WELSH NOT" hung around a student's neck), to revert to a Welsh
> name and write Welsh poetry was a symbolic act of cultural rebellion.
And ultimately a successful rebellion, to prevent the eradication
of the Welsh language, and return it to the position of esteem it
once had and still deserved among the languages of poetry and song.
Iolo Morganwg was a chief proponent and organizer of eisteddfodau,
bardic gatherings, for the performance and competition of music and
verse, which we now see in the Royal National Eisteddfod each year.
This has been part and parcel of the cultural return to prominence
of the Welsh language in Wales, after its having been the ragged
stepchild for so long. Iolo, for all his flaws, deserves some credit.
Did he do wrong with his forgeries? Yes. It hurts to be left unsure
which of the documents were real (for some were) and which false.
No doubt he thought heroic national legends are good things to have
(Cuchulain in the Post Office? Washington & the cherry tree?), but
all good Irishmen and Americans alike will righteously disagree.
Rasputina
He was a fruad but you seem to like frauds. Be associated with frauds
then.
Sizzle Flambé
> On Jul 7, 7:23 pm, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 12:55 pm, linkin <ardadm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 7, 3:51 pm, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Iolo with an I as in India. Short for Iorweth, Welsh form of Edward.
>>> [...] I don't really care about what makie-up name some [...]
>>> lunatic called himself.
>> You've missed noticing that it *wasn't* a "makie-up name", but the
>> actual Welsh form of his own name, no less than Sean=John in Ireland.
> Oh yes it was a Makie-up name. His real name was Edward Williams
So you think *translating* a name from one language into another
constitutes "making it up"? If "Erzsebet" becomes "Elizabeth" or
"Ekaterina" becomes "Katherine" or "Aleksandr" becomes "Alexander",
the latter are all "Makie-up names" in your view, not translations?
Sizzle Flambé
> He was a fruad but you seem to like frauds.
Well, no. *You* are a fraud, and I don't like *you*.
So your over-broad generalization fails right there.
The difference is, Iolo did some good things and some bad things.
I can deplore the bad things he did, and still appreciate the
good things he did. He had, as most human beings do, a mixed
record in life. What can I, a fellow human being, say to that?
You, on the other hand, have piled dishonesty upon malice.
Where's the silver lining in that? Just endless dark clouds.
Rasputina
Poor ole Suezzle Flatbutt, always lookin for a fake to support. I hear
the guy who wrote the Hitler diaries is under attack. Off to his
support Suezzle!
An Coibhi Drui
sez a SOCK, worthless.
Sizzle Flambé
> sez a SOCK, worthless.
This hardly needed saying, Michael. All that was in his post
amounted to helpless snarls and whines of a cornered animal.
What a come-down from his attempted high historical lectern!
To think he sank so low from inability to admit his ignorance,
beginning with so simple a matter as the spelling of a name.
This entire exchange, with all his evasions, excuses, dodges,
hostilities, and finally his futile puerile spitball insults,
gives anyone with the patience to read it a portrait of Cormac,
everything one needs to know about his intellectual integrity
or rather his lack thereof. It's a perfect caricature of him.
(FYI raw newcomers, "linkin" and "Rasputina" are also "Cormac".)
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
Oh thank you for clairfying that Suezzle Fatbutt. You contribution
being no more than to troll for McGrath. Find a wally and support him,
is that your policy. You are as inane as..... let's say Elaine. Twits
Together
Sizzle Flambé
> Oh thank you for clairfying
Not to engage in spellflaming, but after your disastrous debate
about "Lolo" vs "Iolo" I might have thought you'd be sensitive
to the issue of what words you actually type onto the screen.
A spellchecker would not have helped in Lolo-vs-Iolo, but would
have helped in clairfying-vs-clarifying. Take advantage of one,
if you would like to look a little bit smarter than at present.
Not that (from current experience) this seems to be your concern.
lully
Oh yes, when did Suezzle Flatbutt ever engage in Flamebaiting.
Flambe???Mmmmm,,,, is the hint in the name? Suezzle Flaimbait!
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
I hereby dub the travelling troll, 'Suezzle Flaimbait'. Arise Suezzle
Flaimbait and troll agaist the light wherever you find it.
Sizzle Flambé
> lully <ardadming @ gmail.com> wrote:
A petty shameless malicious forgery, which was quickly exposed:
<http://tinyurl.com/lully-forgery-1>
After all your inveighing against Iolo Morganwg as a fraud,
this was the rankest and vilest hypocrisy on your part.
And further proof that nothing you say can be trusted.
vixxie
Sizzle in your own Flamebait you troll.
An Coibhi Drui
( Dwyer, a Lurker in the Shadows, not a man ! ) .
Sizzle Flambé
>> lully <ardadming @ gmail.com> wrote...
>>> gringle <ardadminf @ gmail.com> wrote...
>>>> nikim <ardadmine @ gmail.com> wrote...
>>>>> On Jul 7, 12:55 pm, linkin <ardadmind @ gmail.com> wrote...
>>>>>> I don't really care about what makie-up name some
>>>>>> [...] lunatic called himself.
A "makie-up" name like vixxie, lully, gringle, nikim, or linkin?
Because "Iolo", remember, *isn't* made-up, any more than "Sean"
or "Ian" are, as name-variants in their respective localities.
Why do you keep denouncing Iolo for what you yourself are doing?
*You* are using "makie-up" names. *You* are committing frauds.
Accusing a long-dead man of those things does not absolve *you*.
You're the coal-black pot atop the grave of the kettle. Point at
the gravestone all you like, but it won't make you shine brighter.
Noinden
>
> - Show quoted text -
Umm It looks like Iolo was written as "Lolo" as in Laugh Out Loud O.
Just suggesting.
Con
as a veneer to cover their racism and superiority complexes. The
measure of a druid is in his or her truth and the lack of truth as a
guiding concept is where many 'druids' worldwide went wrong and could
never be right.
Sizzle Flambé
> On Jul 7, 12:32 pm, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iolo_Morganwg
>
>> That verifies what I just told you. Iolo, *not* Lolo.
>
> Just suggesting.
If you're reading it in a sanserif font, try a serif font like
Courier or Times. Copy-and-paste to a notepad. Or flip cases
between upper and lower, so that I/i and L/l show more clearly;
you'll see IOLO/iolo, not LOLO/lolo. Given that the first letter
of a name is capitalized, you'd see a capital L if it were Lolo,
so that vertical line at the start of "Iolo" is an Eye not an ELL.
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
That is exactly what Rollo and Arfur are doing. It covers their racism
and it also covers the fact they are degenerate substance abuses.
Noinden
Sorry but you will still see "" around it. Thus it was deliberately
typed that way, not a typo. It still was at first glance meant to be
LOL O (spacing added by me). You would have to be a true pedant, or
idiot to miss that one.
Iolo is a laughing stock in reconstructionist Druid Circles, almost as
much as Monroe. While his work was “important” at the time, it’s been
debunked decades back as fabrication, poor scholarship, and more.
Revivalists might have more affinity to it perhaps?
Noinden
wrote:
See Sizzle a deliberate spelling of Arthur as Arfur.... perhaps you
need to find some new windmills to tilt at?
Brian Damage
Strictly speaking, where Iolo wen wrong was to claim that some of his
own original work was something he discovered of more ancient bardic
work. Some mistakenly take him for a plajurist, but this is not the
case, he made the mistake of trying to add weight to his own work as
that of previous ancient Bards.
No doubt he was an intelligent and gifted person, but with an ego the
size of a house.
golwg
Matthew
Noinden
> Strictly speaking, where Iolo wen wrong was to claim that some of his
> own original work was something he discovered of more ancient bardic
> work. Some mistakenly take him for a plajurist, but this is not the
> case, he made the mistake of trying to add weight to his own work as
> that of previous ancient Bards.
> No doubt he was an intelligent and gifted person, but with an ego the
> size of a house.
>
> golwg
>
> Matthew
Perhaps. I think it's more that those who followed (a lot of those
Fraternal Orders) took as what he wrote as authentic. I've nothing
against those orders, but the way they lurk around Henges on
astronomically "significant" dates, wearing white, carrying gold
painted garden implements, and Egyptian head gear, makes it very hard
for the more historically minded of us, to keep a straight face ;)
Elaine Stutt
It's amazing but he actually manages to make Michael look... well
not good but not as bad in comparison. This is why originally
I had strong suspicions that Con/Cormac were just sock opponents
of Michael, that is that he was the author of all three characters.
But no, people who've checked with Irish sources say they actually
have separate existences. Which is amazing because they're so
twinned here.
Elaine
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now isn't that a bit of Flamebait trolling even Suezzle Flamebait
could be proud of. Very similar style. So twinned.
Con
difference between a lying fascist bully and his 'able to stand up to
him" victim. But then maybe it is not just sad. maybe it is stupid.
Maybe the arrogant fools who exist as internet lords on their own
private (public) usenet are pretending to know things of value. They
have been shamed - they attacked the messenger and ignored the message
and just want to go back asleep and dream about having intimate but
fake war dances with charlie, kevin and jim. They have no care
whatsoever for truth. Like a load of anorak wearing druid judging
trainspotters. But they dont own usenet or ard and while McGrath fake
druid espouses his lies about me and mine and the druid path I and
others will stand against him and tear him to shreds.
Sad efforts at flamebait trolling by ard incumbents show them to be
little more than school bullies, McGrath and his gang of charlie the
tank driver and the burnt out suzzle and the stoned henge idiot in
their efforts to make druidry into a fascist reserve without truth
honour or dignity has long ago failed.
All the above deny the truth, they spin and spam, flame and troll and
stand on petty issues. But you cannot be a druid if you tell lies, if
you make tanks and you cannot be a druid if you ignore truth.
I am not a sock or a traveler or mistaken. I am a man hunting McGrath
fake druid to extinction, if you are not able or willing to help -
stay out of my way.
Noinden
You mistake several of us for giving a damn about either you or
McGrath. From day one several of us called Mike on his crap. You over
the years have sadly not done yourself a service.
You ask us to not interact with him, and lo, you do just that
(interact with him). Yes Mike is a fetid old fool, but as pointed out
by Searles (and I am NO fan of his!), you do yourself no service with
how you do this.
The regulars of ARD (and many of us have been here for over a decade)
are tired of you all! It's why we seldom post. For when we TRY to be
ontopic, Mike takes it off topic and one of you goes after mike.
You talk of "truth", but sadly you do not get, that this truth is
subjective to both you and Mike.
Kindly tone it down, or finish it. Don't drag it out.
Slan leat (don't let the door hit your arse)
Gareth
Con
and servers for his lies about me and for his 3 years of death threats
to me - all this because I would not let him give me title, honour or
office. McGrath is a nasty bully telling lies who is not a druid. He
has done much harm in Ireland to the nurturing of pagan spirituality
and I am his target since Gina made a fool of herself on Tara.
You and others on ard ignored the message and attacked the messenger.
If as you say you dont give a damn then get out of the way and stay
out of the way - realize that McGrath will have no peace where ever he
is fed online - so dont feed the fake druid! I and others will hunt
him to extinction.
Just be clear about this - I was invited to ard by an ard long timer
and by McGrath who said he will tear druidism down - this was aimed at
many but specifically at me. Ask McGrath fake druid to leave - get
ardarians to agree to never exchange with McGrath fake druid and I and
many others are gone from this usenet. Feed him and I and others will
continue to rip his lies apart for ever. Stand with the tank maker,
suzzle and stoned henge idiot and have the light of truth shined upon
you. Make your choice and stop whinging.
By the way that is almost the same message by the same messenger from
years ago, but with a little more qualifying reasoning added.
An Coibhi Drui
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
You speak from the heart Gareth. I hear that. I hear your frustration.
Your words have strength this time and I hope we can come some way to
making our arguments in a calm way. This is easier to do when you feel
you are heard and not just continually responded to with flame and
taunt.
I would be very much in favour of staying on topic and allowing each
person that is respectful to have their say, even if I don't agree
with it. I hear you about Mickey. He is very hard to deal with. He
will put up stories that are complete fiction and then when they are
disproved he goes off on a rant or changes the subject lines. He would
be bad enough on his own but with his trusty troll assistants, it is
very hard not to lose the cool and be drawn into a flame war.
You can see the subtle flaming going on by Elaine, Sizzle and Charles
and the outright flaming by Stonehengeio. Does it seem like any of
those want to stay on topic?
In Con's defence, and he can defend himself, I cannot imagine how hard
it is to keep the cool when you have had to deal with the amount of
lies, defamation and abuse he has had to take from McGrath. I know if
it were me who had been named in conjunction with so many allegations
and threats I would have gone straight to his door and pulled his head
clean off. Let the court judge if I was provoked or not.
I have asked Con to 'tone it down' as you put it and I ask him again
now. I know he has right on his side but I think the incessant pecking
by McGrath, Stonehengeio, Charles, Sizzle and Elaine, in their own
ways has taken it's toll. In fact you can recall Con left ARD for a
few weeks leading up to the solstice in the hope McGrath would quit
and also leave, but he didn't. He stayed and crowed and taunted Con
back. You know that.
I think what you did just there is very constructive and if more of
the 'ARD regulars' took that attitude then I think there could be some
hope of resoution. I suspect there are agendas and allegiances in
place that will make this difficult.
An Coibhi Drui
wrote:
If you can't stand the heat, get out if the kitchen, Dwyer !
And take Cornelius Connors with you, to the nearest environmental
refuse unit :-)
Cheers,
Michael.
Stacey
Stacey
In article <cc0804fc-7fb2-4f76...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Con says...
An Coibhi Drui
To the members here, remember that this battle is for the sake of
Ireland and Irish Druidry, and I cannot surrender an inch to this
bullying tyrant Con Connor, and will not, Ever.
Connors is in reality a paper tiger with nobody left with him except
his daughter - and Dwyer over in Calvi in Corsica, his Gay Lover.
Connors has no power, he has no trump card to play, he's finished,
he's a pauper, with absolutely nobody in Ireland, in fact in real life
people have never even heard of him here.
He's just a Chancer on his own, all he has is his Big Bad Ugly Mouth ,
sorry you all have to put up with that, and the mealy-mouthed Dwyer.
Ar aghaidh le Drui na h-Eireann !
Michael McGrath,
Archdruid of Ireland
( Elected, Traditional, Hereditary) .
noinden
Just to be clear about this Con. From day one I was on McGraths case for
being racist and a liar. Most of the rest of 'us' came around very fast.
So who invited you eh? I've been attacked as much as you on Ard so who?
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe you may be correct Stacey. Con had complained to Croman
about the defamation taking place on ARD and appealed for something to
be done. Croman asked Con to come onto ARD and make his side of the
story so it could be better understood. Con understood Croman was in
good standing on ARD.
Con
noinden
However Croman is not a long standing member. Dan, Dana, Searles, my
self and many others have been posting here for over a decade.
I also asked that McGeth shut up unless the person he accused could
defend themselves. Sadly what we got is a pissing match for the worlds
least active Druidic community.
An Coibhi Drui
I am not and never was a racist, as witness the black people I invited
into my circle on Tara as early as 1995 ( see photos, The Irish Times,
Dublin, 22nd June 1995 , and sorry if you have to pay The Irish Times
a little fee, your problem not mine ( I never have to pay them
anything, perk of the job ! ) .
So go off and find a candle and screw yourself, Sue :-)
Better still join Connors for all anybody cares :-)
Cheers,
Michael.
noinden
> The question should be - who invited McGrath fake druid to ard and
> why?
He invited himself it's a free intraweb
An Coibhi Drui
Coman the Dwarf, where are they now, no staying power, no guts, no
ideas except rubbish about race, being PC, communism etc etc.
Con
How do you get to be a regular?
I'm on ard since sept 07, so I'm a regular.
If on the other hand only 10 year members are to be considered
regulars - why dont you all go and form a private moderated usenet
that does not use the term druid and dont let me or McGrath fake druid
in ever?
An Coibhi Drui
> The question should be - who invited McGrath fake druid to ard and why?
A Druidic Mystery for all time !
An Coibhi Drui
What a load of Incredible Shyte
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
That's true Gareth, he invited himself. Every other site he landed on
previous to ARD soon turfed him out. I had confronted his, as had Con,
on those sites and put reasonable arguments and explanations against
him. This was always succesful. However when it came to ARD there was
no way to remove him or moderate his posts. This would have been bad
enough but it soon became obvious there were people who were enjoying
the 'Donnybrook' of the 'Irish'. It wasn't as if everyone turned a
deaf ear to him, no, he was entertained and feb by some and even
complimented on his writing style and 'clothes'. It is easy to see in
hindsight but that is what lead to so much anger. The more he/they
managed to get a rise out of Con the more glee was apparent in their
posts and the more they goaded on in many underhand ways. I
acknowledge that some members here, such as yourself, Stacey and Dan
have always spoken the truth regarding McGrath. But the others I named
previously adopted a willful ignorance with regard to him. I do think
that if McGrath had been totally ignored here that the situation would
not have deteriorated to this extent. To those who smugly think their
part in this is not recognised, I tell you it is, and it is to your
eternal shame.
noinden
Well here is the thing. You say we should ignore him. But your camp does
not. Con talks of standing for truth ( and sorry but truth is
subjective) yet to do that one has to tell the old wanker he is speaking
lies.
We actually ignored him and got him TOSed ( remember his email change
and ISP change?) and then some idiot from Eire just HAD to bring him
up...
Think about it lad!
noinden
Con youarw missing the bloody point. We never said you could not post
here. Nor have we said Little Mikey can not. This is an open unmoderatef
group.
However both you and Mike deign to Order us around. You with thesi
called geis. He with hesi called authority. You are nothing more than
posters here. Both of you are not following the rules of hospitality.
You both began as poor guests and remain so to this day.
You would actually have more backers if you did not stoop to McGraths
level.
Slam Lear
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
I hear what you are saying Gareth, about the difficult situation we
are in and the bad way it has developed but you are going the right
way about dealing with the issues that are affecting you and us all.
You are starting a dialogue rather than talking down or sneering. The
present situation is all you said it is but on the bright side there
is no reason people cannot learn from their mistakes and move on.
There is no law that says because things have been thus so far they
must remain thus. We are fluid humans, not machines.
So let me see if I can take some of your points. The constant posting
of the Geis is an annoyance? I'm sure Con would agree to halt the
posting of the Geis except on certain occaisions when it is pertinent
to the discussion. You are expressing what I think others have been
feeling too, a sense of being lectured or ordered about from all
sides. You should not have to feel like that. Nobody should. It is not
in keeping with the egalitarian beliefs Good people espouse. This
perception may have been real or something taken from a typed word
that was not there or it may be genuinely born from frustration
breeding a rushed sentence or whatever. Now that we are aware such
feelings are being engendered in others it is imperative to make sure
future utterances should be wrapped with respect for the reader. I'm
sure Con will agree to this. And again remember, there have been
people who encouraged an environment conducive to McGrath who must
share some of the reward for the harsh postings that came against him
and which others also felt.
I think I can speak for Con but certainly for myself when I say I have
lost all respect for the behaviour of some members and would not care
if I upset them or not. But out of respect for the rest I will try to
moderate my responses to the flame and troll activity. I could also
see a time, based on a sustained period of improved cooperation, when
I could regain some respect for members I now hold in low standing,
and hopefully they for I.
You are spot on when you say Con should not engage with McGrath. I am
also guilty of engaging with him and I know I shouldn't. He taunts and
flames for a response and when he can he spoils decent discussion. It
would be so much easier if Charles and Elaine were to stop interacting
with him too and to adopt a better attitude to myself and Con, who
have surely proved many times we have not been the ones lying or
trying to deceive. I am not ordering but it would certainly help move
the situation forward.
We have all been here long enough now that people can be in no doubt
who is the liar and who is not. So mischief making aside, if Charles
and Elaine really care about ARD then it is time to go to work.
This is not a final solution but it would be a step in the right
direction that may lead to another and another. We will no doubt slip
and make mistakes but if we adopt an attitude of helping each other
towards a resolution then perhaps we can do it. Perhaps we can.
noinden
One thing to remeber is that many of the posters here are Americans. I
am not. While I live and work here I m still an antipodean at heart. Buy
Americans value freedom of expression but also yearn for the ancestral
lands ( if they know where those are. Many ate happy to be "mutts")).
Thus those who engage both sides, think that either Mcgrath or Con are
closer to that! Which is tripe. However I would remind you that while
McGrath ilhas exposed the worst of Hos Brown shirt nature, the attacks
on say Searles as an American and a person in the defense industry is
just as bigoted. Attack the man not the Nation. My own Pharma job is
seen by many in paganism as going against the grain. However that too
shows igorance.
Sizzle Flambé
> On Jul 8, 8:56 am, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 8:16 am, Noinden <noin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 7, 12:32 pm, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iolo_Morganwg
>
>>>> That verifies what I just told you. Iolo, *not* Lolo.
>
>>> Umm It looks like Iolo was written as "Lolo" as in Laugh Out Loud O.
>>> Just suggesting.
>
>> If you're reading it in a sanserif font, try a serif font like
>> Courier or Times. Copy-and-paste to a notepad. Or flip cases
>> between upper and lower, so that I/i and L/l show more clearly;
>> you'll see IOLO/iolo, not LOLO/lolo. Given that the first letter
>> of a name is capitalized, you'd see a capital L if it were Lolo,
>> so that vertical line at the start of "Iolo" is an Eye not an ELL.
>
> Sorry but you will still see "" around it. Thus it was deliberately
> typed that way, not a typo. It still was at first glance meant to be
> LOL O (spacing added by me). You would have to be a true pedant, or
> idiot to miss that one.
In that Wikipedia article? Noinden, I've done a text search for "lolo"
on that page and nothing turned up. Where are you finding a LOLO there?
An Coibhi Drui
wrote:
In other words, folks, this is Dwyer, on behalf of Connors, telling us
to :
" Do as we say but not as we do ! "
This is patronising the members of a.r.d. , this is subjecting the
members of a.r.d. to the Connors/Dwyer carrot-and-stick approach, this
is totally objectionable from two pretenders never elected or chosen
or picked by anybody , Dwyer being picked by me, admittedly, some
years ago but he was never any good then either except at lurking and
double-dealing in the background.
Connors has always imposed himself on people, like the former CDE
Druid group in Ireland, but he has never been chosen by anybody, never
headed up any important occasion, is a bad organiser, and cannot
relate to people except to try to bully them, he can't relate, people
just do not relate to him, a few stick around for a little while and
then they're gone too. How is it that nobody who has ever met him has
never had a good word for him ?
Basically he has now well and truly failed in his foray into Druidry
over the past few years, his druidschool enterprise is a flop that
nobody will touch, not even for free.
But this is the most transparently hypocritical attempt I have
witnessed here so far from this duo when they nicely reassure people
that they are going to be nice guys from now on, but only if you
behave yourselves as we wish you to behave ourselves. How can bullies
like Connors ask people to behave themselves, behave themselves like
who, like himself and become bullies too , playing the sub-bully
role ?
How can Dwyer from the evil darkness in which he hides himself dare
preach to decent people here who move out in the bright world of
truth ?
And in any case how would Dwyer and Connors , pompous and arrogant
Nonentities as they are, behave themselves while they still declare
their sworn enemies by name on this newsgroup ?
Personally they can stick their Geis up !
It would be much more more natural, decent , truthful and honest of
them , if they continue on to be the pompous, arrogant and insulting
nonentities that they are, that would be more upfront ,
straightforward , realistic and true-to-life for them where they are
concerned, because they harrass, bully and seek to intimidate night
and day to the point of obsession, to a totally incredible degree, to
a freakish degree, with a brutal force, viciousness and venom that is
an outrage to the civilized world !
And all to the continuous non-stop cacaphony of soul-destroying
propaganda, to the veiled threats , the black smear, and behind it all
- the Grotesque Madness of it all.
Sincerely,
Michael.
stonehengeio
The deal is, if we refuse to let you communicate they will let ard
function again.
Like i said,Simple Blackmail, typical fascist tactic.
An Coibhi Drui
What is Political Correctness , what is the Nannie State, only Fascism
in disguise ! Left totalitarism is simplt right totalitarianism
because it is all totalitarism, it all consists of Double Speak
foreign to Druidry.
The Far Left and the Far Right are not the opposite ends of a straight
line, you understand it more clearly if you consider them the two ends
of a horseshoe bending in towards each other.
And, boy do they need one another. When the Centre cannot hold, when
the c Centre collapses, the battle each other in the streets for
supremacy, we saw them actually fight pitched battles in the streets
of Germany - with artillery ! - during the Weimar Republic.
And that's why Connors needs me :-)
He thinks that this time, next time, maybe the time after, he will by
some stroke defeat me. But he's too late, he has lost too many times
to too many people, and he can't hide his blind ambition, his lust for
power, money and glory.
He calculates that he has gone too far now to try to turn back - in
that he is correct. It's ' Shit or Bust' time for him now.
And he still only has his daughter, nobody else, and Dwyer over in
Calvi in Corsica. But even if Dwyer were right beside him, Dwyer would
be useless to him because Dwyer is the laziest and most worthless
organiser I have ever come across.
They have the few ponces in the Auvergnes, that's it.
Cheers,
Michael.
Also, he fails, and he will always fail, because he has no interest in
ideals, and above all, no interest in people.
An Coibhi Drui
wrote:
Also, Ideology does not equal Idealism.
Idealism is felt as raw emotion amongst the masses of the people, it
moves, it moves mountains. The Bearer of the Culture built upon the
Ideal must have the clarity of vision to move those mountains to the
right places.
Ideology can be adapted, borrowed and used to fit the occasion, as
Dwyer and Connors use it ( Dwyer is the backroom Ideologist, not
Connors who barely understands the slogans he mouths) .
Idealism cannot be borrowed adapted or used - you must possess it !
Then it can be most powerfully used and directed, though that always
requires sacrifice, thus elimating Dwyer and Connors.
In Idealism is found comradeship, Loyalty, Honour - and Truth, above
all the Will to Sacrifice.
( While Ideology withers into Policy and always leads the drift back
to the Centre, Compromise and Defeat ) .
Cheers,
Michael.
Noinden
> On Jul 8, 10:15 am, Noinden <noin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In that Wikipedia article? Noinden, I've done a text search for "lolo"
> on that page and nothing turned up. Where are you finding a LOLO there?-
Sizzle old chap, I know enough abou Iolo not to use Wiki as a source.
Lets take this slow, as you are being slow today.
"Lolo" =Laugh out loud o, a modern acronym with o added to make it
appear like Iolo. Thus it was a weak attept at humor. QED that will
not show up in Wiki.
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Points taken Gareth. The attacks on Searles originated in his blatant
support for McGrath. I understand what you say about misguided views
of the 'homeland' but having participated on many forums where McGrath
was quite quickly ajudicated as a troll and promptly banned, it was
quite a shock to find someone who, at first sight appeared to be
intelligent and educated, taking McGrath seriously. McGrath performed
here as he has on many other sites with the same trolling, flaming,
lying, defamation, lies and threats to individuals and peoples. I was
genuinly shocked to see Searles entertaining him and saying he could
not see who was right and who was wrong. Later on I realised that this
was a willfull ignorance on Searles behalf, the sort one employs to
deny the shorcomings of a friend or relative.
Much has been made of Searles involvement in the miltitary industrial
complex and indeed I too used this as a stick with which to beat him.
I would say my criticism was more to do with the shortcomings of the
Bradley machine. I agree this is unfair coming from me, as I am part
of a (much better) military system. Most of my criticism of Searles
was to do with the delivery and content of his 'lectures'. People
attack those who set their face against them, with any means
necessary, and you must remember a year ago that Searles was wishing
colon cancer on myself and Con.
Again, this is the past and I believe we can move on from it if the
will is there on all sides. It isn't a sigle issue that must be
decided. It is not a case of 'yes' or 'no'. It will require a much
longer and more imaginative campaign to resolve this situation.
As you can see, while we are discussing this the three trolls are hard
at work trying to flame us back into engaging them. This is the mud
where they are happiest and if the rest of us, us newer people and the
older visitors here, can remain dignified and reserve judgements and
responses at this crucial time, then it may be possible to advance out
of the mud.
It is more important at this stage to gel together and forget about
impressing any casual readers. Is it possible, do you think, to
continue rational debate and ignore the flies?
(I would point out that this truce does not extend to rugby)
Noinden
wrote:
> (I would point out that this truce does not extend to rugby)
I remeber the Irish team was once stupid enough to advance on the Haka
during the prematch... hardest beating they Irish ever had ;)
Cormac Mac Carthaigh
I'm more of a Munster fan than an Irish fan. I went home last year for
the opening of Thomond Park in Limerick when the All Blacks were held
close enough but I did get the feeling they may have gone easy because
relations with Munster have always been close. But bloody Rokocoko had
to score! Munster beat the All Blacks in 78 and drew in 73 and we have
had a lot of Kiwi players down the years: John Langford, Jim Williams,
Christian Cullen, Paul Warwick, Rua Tipoki, and Doug Howlett. It was
quite a moment when the four kiwis on the Munster team did the Haka
before the All Blacks that night in Tomond.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8hzfrTPo6E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCOx24TsBPI
An Coibhi Drui
You will now have to adjust Searles' brain, Dwyer ! Also
Stonegengio's, Sizzle's, littlelooney's , all of us to make us fall in
love with Con as you have.
I believe that Searles prefers to be in his present state - in love
with Deborah, and she with him.
At least you admit total defeat in your attempt to adjust my brain !
Cheers,
Michael
An Coibhi Drui
wrote:
Elaine is too damned independent- minded, please adjust her brain too,
Dwyer !
Thanks,
Michael.
An Coibhi Drui
And as for Dan you gave up , because you know that no amount of brain-
adjustment will sort him out !!!
Cheers,
Michael.
An Coibhi Drui
Matthew has an anti-hacking device built into his brain, so no luck
there either, Dwyer !
Sizzle Flambé
> On Jul 8, 9:12 pm, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 10:15 am, Noinden <noin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In that Wikipedia article? Noinden, I've done a text search for "lolo"
>> on that page and nothing turned up. Where are you finding a LOLO there?
>
But you mentioned *no other source* in which it "was written".
|>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iolo_Morganwg
|
|>>>> That verifies what I just told you. Iolo, *not* Lolo.
|
|>>> Umm It looks like Iolo was written as "Lolo" as in Laugh Out Loud
O.
|>>> Just suggesting.
| [...]
|> Sorry but you will still see "" around it. Thus it was deliberately
|> typed that way, not a typo. It still was at first glance meant to
be
|> LOL O (spacing added by me). You would have to be a true pedant, or
|> idiot to miss that one.
If it's *not even in that source at all*, then it's rather easy to
miss
whether or not one is a true pedant or an idiot. You had asserted that
something "is written" or "deliberately typed" in such a way that few
could miss it -- but *where*? Not in the only document actually named!
The outcome? Your assertion is unsupported. On top of your insulting
condescension, you appear to have lied to my face, and are now trying
to pass the whole thing off as a joke, as though dishonesty were
funny.
> Lets take this slow, as you are being slow today.
>
> "Lolo" =Laugh out loud o, a modern acronym with o added to make it
> appear like Iolo. Thus it was a weak attept at humor. QED that will
> not show up in Wiki.
A very, very, very weak attempt, Noinden. One that failed pitiably.
For all your talk of honor, I will never ever accept your word again.
Noinden
> On Jul 9, 9:18 am, Noinden <noin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 9:12 pm, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 8, 10:15 am, Noinden <noin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In that Wikipedia article? Noinden, I've done a text search for "lolo"
> >> on that page and nothing turned up. Where are you finding a LOLO there?
>
> > Sizzle old chap, I know enough about Iolo not to use Wiki as a source.
>
> But you mentioned *no other source* in which it "was written".
Because it was plainly evident to all but the densest here ;)
> |>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iolo_Morganwg
> |
> |>>>> That verifies what I just told you. Iolo, *not* Lolo.
> |
> |>>> Umm It looks like Iolo was written as "Lolo" as in Laugh Out Loud
> O.
> |>>> Just suggesting.
> | [...]
> |> Sorry but you will still see "" around it. Thus it was deliberately
> |> typed that way, not a typo. It still was at first glance meant to
> be
> |> LOL O (spacing added by me). You would have to be a true pedant, or
> |> idiot to miss that one.
>
> If it's *not even in that source at all*, then it's rather easy to
> miss
> whether or not one is a true pedant or an idiot. You had asserted that
> something "is written" or "deliberately typed" in such a way that few
> could miss it -- but *where*? Not in the only document actually named!
Ummm by understanding netese, by knowing modern conventions. It is
indeed plainly evident.
\
> The outcome? Your assertion is unsupported. On top of your insulting
> condescension, you appear to have lied to my face, and are now trying
> to pass the whole thing off as a joke, as though dishonesty were
> funny.
Not really spud. They refered to Arthur Pendragon (the modern one) as
Arfur as well. It sort of gives it away.
> > Lets take this slow, as you are being slow today.
>
> > "Lolo" =Laugh out loud o, a modern acronym with o added to make it
> > appear like Iolo. Thus it was a weak attept at humor. QED that will
> > not show up in Wiki.
>
> A very, very, very weak attempt, Noinden. One that failed pitiably.
> For all your talk of honor, I will never ever accept your word again.
“I am crushed”. I’ve done nothing dishonorable there, other than
pointing out your obvious mistakes. If your ego is that eggshell thin…
then it’s on you not I!
Sizzle Flambé
Back to the start of this thread, where the "Lolo" spelling appeared:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.druid/msg/
3289aef00ea7260b>
| Some modern British pseudo-druids like Rollo Maughfling and John
| Rothwell (aka King Arthur) hang around the new-age fringe,
| celebrating solstices at Stonehenge [...]
| The great transforming influence, however, was Edward Williams.
| An amateur scholar, failed shopkeeper and enthusiastic laudanum
| addict, Williams also transformed himself, becoming Lolo Morganwg
| or Glamorgan Eddie. [...]
| Today Stonehenge is a melee of drunk and stoned revellers with
| only a sympolic ritual performed by those who try to recreate what
| intuition and reason combined inform them may have been the original
| Druid format. The ‘theatre’ folk like ‘King Arthur’ turn up to avail
| of the attention and free cider and cigarettes which they claim as a
| ‘tax’ off unsuspection newbies.
That article referred to "Arthur", no deliberate humorous misspelling.
Now possibly you might argue that "sympolic" and "unsuspection" were
deliberate humorous misspellings, but they look amazingly like
ordinary
unfunny typos -- just as "Lolo" looks like an ordinary ignorant error.
And notice that "Lolo" does *not* appear in "" marks in that article,
which had been one of your claimed indicators.
>>> Lets take this slow, as you are being slow today.
>
>>> "Lolo" =Laugh out loud o, a modern acronym with o added to make it
>>> appear like Iolo. Thus it was a weak attept at humor. QED that will
>>> not show up in Wiki.
>
>> A very, very, very weak attempt, Noinden. One that failed pitiably.
>> For all your talk of honor, I will never ever accept your word again.
>
> "I am crushed". I've done nothing dishonorable there, other than
> pointing out your obvious mistakes. If your ego is that eggshell thin...
> then it's on you not I!
It could only have been *my* mistake if what *you* said was *true*.
The problem with your dodge there is that your claims proved false.
In the article starting this discussion, the name Lolo did *not*
appear in quotation marks to indicate a joke; the name Arthur was
properly spelled twice and *not* rendered "Arfur" jokewise. (Such a
joking spelling was used in entirely different posts and contexts,
where the mood was abusive banter rather than historical "lecture".)
If one cannot trust you on such small things, how can one trust you
on anything else, Noinden? Let alone the important matters in life?
Noinden
> That article referred to "Arthur", no deliberate humorous misspelling.
> Now possibly you might argue that "sympolic" and "unsuspection" were
> deliberate humorous misspellings, but they look amazingly like
> ordinary
> unfunny typos -- just as "Lolo" looks like an ordinary ignorant error.
Read later on spud! It is spelled Arfur, I am assuming as a reference
to Arthur (Arfur)_ Daily ;) That however may be the antipodean in
me :P
> And notice that "Lolo" does *not* appear in "" marks in that article,
> which had been one of your claimed indicators.
However you attacked the spelling Lolo. It appeared in “” at that
point and is quite obviously a play on LOL. You are too linear in your
thinking. I also think you trying to set a straw man argument up. Your
histrionics over “being able to trust me” clearly indicate that you
are playing a less than open game.
> >>> Lets take this slow, as you are being slow today.
>
> >>> "Lolo" =Laugh out loud o, a modern acronym with o added to make it
> >>> appear like Iolo. Thus it was a weak attept at humor. QED that will
> >>> not show up in Wiki.
>
> >> A very, very, very weak attempt, Noinden. One that failed pitiably.
> >> For all your talk of honor, I will never ever accept your word again.
>
> > "I am crushed". I've done nothing dishonorable there, other than
> > pointing out your obvious mistakes. If your ego is that eggshell thin...
> > then it's on you not I!
>
> It could only have been *my* mistake if what *you* said was *true*.
It has not been shown to be untrue. So get off that high horse, the
fall is going to hurt.
> The problem with your dodge there is that your claims proved false.
Not a dodge. I clearly stated what I thought was going on. It has not
been refuted by those who typed it. Iolo is harder to type as Lolo by
mistake given the position of the keys, and the generally accurate
typing of the person involved. Furthered by the “” involved in at
least one case. QED it was deliberate.
> In the article starting this discussion, the name Lolo did *not*
> appear in quotation marks to indicate a joke; the name Arthur was
> properly spelled twice and *not* rendered "Arfur" jokewise. (Such a
> joking spelling was used in entirely different posts and contexts,
Again you are relying on ONE post (it’s not an article) on usent. Far
too linear.
> If one cannot trust you on such small things, how can one trust you
> on anything else, Noinden? Let alone the important matters in life?
“I am shattered”… but I will get over it. Oh look I have.
Sizzle Flambé
> On Jul 9, 11:17 pm, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That article referred to "Arthur", no deliberate humorous misspelling.
>> Now possibly you might argue that "sympolic" and "unsuspection" were
>> deliberate humorous misspellings, but they look amazingly like ordinary
>> unfunny typos -- just as "Lolo" looks like an ordinary ignorant error.
>
In *different* posts, *not* written for "lecture" purposes", you mean?
Because there was no "later on" in *that* post.
>> And notice that "Lolo" does *not* appear in "" marks in that
>> article, which had been one of your claimed indicators.
>
> However you attacked the spelling Lolo. It appeared in “” at that
> point and is quite obviously a play on LOL.
*I* put "" marks around the word when I quoted Cormac's spelling,
not to put a play on words but simply to indicate a quotation.
> You are too linear in your thinking.
Are you saying you then assumed the "" were in the original text?
> I also think you trying to set a straw man argument up.
When you see a quotation with "" around it, your "NON-linear
thinking" believes the "" was part of the original text being
quoted, and NOT something added at the time of the quotation?
> Your histrionics over “being able to trust me” clearly
> indicate that you are playing a less than open game.
I asked you repeatedly where you saw the cited text you
claimed to see right there in the source, where only a
pedant or an idiot could miss it, and it's turned out
not to be there after all. No "Lolo"-in-quotation-marks
(to indicate a play on words) nor "Arfur" in the original
post of this thread that started the debate. What there
might be somewhere else on the Net doesn't have bearing.
Yet you kept claiming, falsely, that it was there.
> [...] Iolo is harder to type as Lolo by mistake
> given the position of the keys, and the generally
> accurate typing of the person involved. [...]
Also, he typed _Lolo_ again into a later post.
> QED it was deliberate.
I concur. This was why I said that *once* might have
been a typo, but *twice* showed ignorance -- i.e. he
actually believed the first letter was L and not I.
Because he wasn't joking. In sanserif fonts, I looks like l,
and _Iolo_ looks like _lolo_. He never knew the difference.
Noinden
> On Jul 10, 8:24 am, Noinden <noin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 11:17 pm, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> That article referred to "Arthur", no deliberate humorous misspelling.
> >> Now possibly you might argue that "sympolic" and "unsuspection" were
> >> deliberate humorous misspellings, but they look amazingly like ordinary
> >> unfunny typos -- just as "Lolo" looks like an ordinary ignorant error.
>
> > Read later on spud! It is spelled Arfur....
>
> In *different* posts, *not* written for "lecture" purposes", you mean?
YAWN. Grow up “Sizzle” oh and how was that carrer in the Navy?
> Because there was no "later on" in *that* post.
Again I say you are thinking far too linearly. Try opening your mind
beyond single posts and Wikipeda, and look at paterns, not your own
shadows.
> >> And notice that "Lolo" does *not* appear in "" marks in that
> >> article, which had been one of your claimed indicators.
>
> > However you attacked the spelling Lolo. It appeared in “” at that
> > point and is quite obviously a play on LOL.
>
> *I* put "" marks around the word when I quoted Cormac's spelling,
> not to put a play on words but simply to indicate a quotation.
If you say so. However Cormac has not refuted what I said.
> > You are too linear in your thinking.
>
> Are you saying you then assumed the "" were in the original text?
No I am saying you can not see the forest for the trees old bean.
> > I also think you trying to set a straw man argument up.
>
> When you see a quotation with "" around it, your "NON-linear
> thinking" believes the "" was part of the original text being
> quoted, and NOT something added at the time of the quotation?
See you are trying another strawman argument here. I saw Lolo, it was
blatently obvious (a) It meant Iolo and (b) it was a play on words.
> > Your histrionics over “being able to trust me” clearly
> > indicate that you are playing a less than open game.
>
> I asked you repeatedly where you saw the cited text you
> claimed to see right there in the source, where only a
> pedant or an idiot could miss it, and it's turned out
> not to be there after all. No "Lolo"-in-quotation-marks
> (to indicate a play on words) nor "Arfur" in the original
> post of this thread that started the debate. What there
> might be somewhere else on the Net doesn't have bearing.
No as usual you tried to ORDER me. You are not the judge of arguments,
or moderator of this group. Thus you do not get to Order me. Simply
put, try reading the whole damed exchange with an open mind. Rather
than an agenda. Gods knows why you’ve sided with McGrath, but you
have, so try and shake that Miasma from you. Between McGrath and Con,
this place stinks worse than the Early Morning of March 18th in
Boston.
> Yet you kept claiming, falsely, that it was there.
Blah blah blah. I did no such thing so kindly Pog Mo Thoin old chap.
> > [...] Iolo is harder to type as Lolo by mistake
> > given the position of the keys, and the generally
> > accurate typing of the person involved. [...]
>
> Also, he typed _Lolo_ again into a later post.
Thus proving it was on bloody purpos yah twit.
> > QED it was deliberate.
>
> I concur. This was why I said that *once* might have
> been a typo, but *twice* showed ignorance -- i.e. he
> actually believed the first letter was L and not I.
Not twice is nothing to do do with ignorance. Twice is a deliberate
play on the name.
> Because he wasn't joking. In sanserif fonts, I looks like l,
> and _Iolo_ looks like _lolo_. He never knew the difference.
You assume he was using a sanserif font. I certainly am not, as many
are not, QED, straw man argument.
Now run along little cat, least I summon Nonagon to deal with you ;)
Sizzle Flambé
> On Jul 10, 2:26 pm, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> *I* put "" marks around the word when I quoted Cormac's spelling,
>> not to put a play on words but simply to indicate a quotation.
>
> If you say so.
Look back at the thread for yourself. It's there for all to see.
> However Cormac has not refuted what I said.
Why need he? He already spoke for himself. Confronted, he did
*not* say "oh, I was making a play on laugh-out-loud"; rather,
he proffered three links as hits in a search for "Lolo Morganwg",
blithely unaware that two actually showed "Iolo Morganwg" in PDF
images where the image-to-text software just misread "I" as "l".
He was making a serious defense of his spelling. No joke.
>> I asked you repeatedly where you saw the cited text you
>> claimed to see right there in the source, where only a
>> pedant or an idiot could miss it, and it's turned out
>> not to be there after all. No "Lolo"-in-quotation-marks
>> (to indicate a play on words) nor "Arfur" in the original
>> post of this thread that started the debate. What there
>> might be somewhere else on the Net doesn't have bearing.
>
> No as usual you tried to ORDER me.
Oh? *This*, in your view, constitutes an ORDER?
| In that Wikipedia article? Noinden, I've done a text search
| for "lolo" on that page and nothing turned up. Where are you
| finding a LOLO there?
Or when we returned....
| Back to the start of this thread, where the "Lolo"
| spelling appeared: [link and extended quote omitted]
| That article referred to "Arthur", no deliberate humorous
| misspelling. Now possibly you might argue that "sympolic"
| and "unsuspection" were deliberate humorous misspellings,
| but they look amazingly like ordinary unfunny typos --
| just as "Lolo" looks like an ordinary ignorant error.
| And notice that "Lolo" does *not* appear in "" marks in
| that article, which had been one of your claimed indicators.
Interrogative and declarative voices only. No imperatives whatsoever.
So from where in the murky depths of your mind are you coming up
with all this froth about ORDERS? Because it has nothing to do
with objective events out here in the world or in this thread.
> You are not the judge of arguments, or moderator of this group.
I am not the moderator of this group, correct.
I am not *THE* judge of arguments, also correct.
However, like anyone else, I can judge for myself
when someone is talking garbage, and say so, and
make my case, and let others make their own judgment.
And that basically is what we are both doing here.
> Thus you do not get to Order me.
Nor you me. So you won't be uttering imperatives then?
> Simply put, try reading the whole damed exchange
> with an open mind. Rather than an agenda.
Y'know, I could point out that I *do* have an open mind,
not an agenda, and that my position has been based on fact
throughout this thread. Or I could observe the odd detail
that the next thing you said was in the imperative voice.
Oh, no ORDERS, here! Riiiiight. What a hypocrite you are.
> Gods knows why you’ve sided with McGrath
I have no care in the world about McGrath's opinion on the
subject of how Iolo Morganwg's name is spelled. As far as I
know, McGrath's concern is *Irish* Druidry, and Iolo was
Welsh. Welsh orthography doesn't depend on McGrath's opinion.
Iolo is short for Iorweth. Iorweth is the Welsh form of Edward,
just as Sean is a Gaelic form of John. These are legitimate
name variants, regional localizations, translations, not mere
"made up" or "makie-up" names. You can go today to Wales and
find people proudly bearing such names, with dignity, in public
life, even in public office, and on their official records --
there's nothing underhanded or imaginary or humorous about them.
Yet Cormac/Rasputina/etc has insisted repeatedly that Iolo is
a "Makie-up name", not a "real" name -- an ironic objection
from lully/vixxie/wawa/linkin/etc. This was why I inquired:
| If "Erzsebet" becomes "Elizabeth" or "Ekaterina" becomes
| "Katherine" or "Aleksandr" becomes "Alexander", the latter
| are all "Makie-up names" in your view, not translations?
For Cormac's position (Iolo-isn't-a-real-name) to be a joke
would involve it being something at least vaguely *funny*.
But it isn't. It's purely and simply ignorant. That's all.
Searles O'Dubhain
> On 8 July, 16:15, Noinden <noin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 8:56 am, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 8:16 am, Noinden <noin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 7, 12:32 pm, Sizzle Flambé <sizzle.fla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iolo_Morganwg
>
> > > >> That verifies what I just told you. Iolo, *not* Lolo.
>
> > > > Umm It looks like Iolo was written as "Lolo" as in Laugh Out Loud O.
> > > > Just suggesting.
>
> > > Courier or Times. Copy-and-paste to a notepad. Or flip cases
> > > between upper and lower, so that I/i and L/l show more clearly;
> > > you'll see IOLO/iolo, not LOLO/lolo. Given that the first letter
> > > of a name is capitalized, you'd see a capital L if it were Lolo,
> > > so that vertical line at the start of "Iolo" is an Eye not an ELL.
>
> > typed that way, not a typo. It still was at first glance meant to be
> > LOL O (spacing added by me). You would have to be a true pedant, or
> > idiot to miss that one.
>
> > much as Monroe. While his work was “important” at the time, it’s been
> > debunked decades back as fabrication, poor scholarship, and more.
> > Revivalists might have more affinity to it perhaps?
>
> Strictly speaking, where Iolo wen wrong was to claim that some of his
> own original work was something he discovered of more ancient bardic
> work. Some mistakenly take him for a plajurist, but this is not the
> case, he made the mistake of trying to add weight to his own work as
> that of previous ancient Bards.
> No doubt he was an intelligent and gifted person, but with an ego the
> size of a house.
>
> golwg
>
> Matthew- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree with your accessment of Iolo. It would have been better for
all if he'd clearly marked what was conjecture and original with hime
vs. what he'd discovered that predated him.
I've found a lot of worth in his writings and he certainly influenced
modern Druidry, as well as added to Welsh culture. One cannot look to
him as a primary source however (due to his claiming that his own work
was ancient and a continuing of the trraditions).
Searles O;Dubhain
Brian Damage
Well, claiming a continuance of the traditions was all the fashion
back then ;)
golwg
Matthew
Searles O'Dubhain
I guess the real key is in HOW one claims a continuance of the
traditions. :-)
In Ireland, the Filidh crafted an entire pseudo-history to be able to
claim a direct link back to Adam. This doesn't mean their work after
setting that up deserves to be ignored or not used. It does mean that
one gets very confused as to what is Christian oriented and what is
not (especially since much of Christian mythology is made up from
earlier Pagan mythologies and traditions). As a result, it also means
that one must study more to be able to "speak from the heart of the
fire."
I think there is also the "start as a cucumber but eventually act like
a pickle after being in the jar with all the other pickles for a
while" syndrome. By this I mean that at some point modern thoughts and
practices seem to spring or be born from a study of the older ones.
That is the point at which things become fluent. Eventually a study of
the Druid way could have one acting as a Druid would act. This is not
to say that the new should not be identified as created while the old
should not be acknowledged as established.
Searles O'Dubhain
Brian Damage
I can agree with this: as an aspiring guitarist and musician, I do
find myself looking back further and further into history to see
'where it all came from'.
I guess for me, it's about acting as my perception of Druid would act,
may lead me to the Druid way.
But then again, I think that is probably romantic nonsense ;)
I find myself compelled to inquire, I am interested in learning new
(and old) things, but in the context of this modern world.
Perhaps I do not fit into the accepted or 'traditional' definition of
'Druid' (when it finally gets ratified ;), but I am neither accepted
generally or tradtional in that aspect, in any context.
golwg
Matthew
1X2Willows
> Con
>
> You mistake several of us for giving a damn about either you or
> McGrath. From day one several of us called Mike on his crap. You over
> the years have sadly not done yourself a service.
>
> You ask us to not interact with him, and lo, you do just that
> (interact with him). Yes Mike is a fetid old fool, but as pointed out
> by Searles (and I am NO fan of his!), you do yourself no service with
> how you do this.
>
> The regulars of ARD (and many of us have been here for over a decade)
> are tired of you all! It's why we seldom post. For when we TRY to be
> ontopic, Mike takes it off topic and one of you goes after mike.
>
> You talk of "truth", but sadly you do not get, that this truth is
> subjective to both you and Mike.
>
> Kindly tone it down, or finish it. Don't drag it out.
>
> Slan leat (don't let the door hit your arse)
>
> Gareth
*clap clap clap*
Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole
> "Noinden" wrote
> > Con
> >
> > You mistake several of us for giving a damn about either you or
> > McGrath.
Mc's/Mic's are the "True Blondes" of the North, Mac's/Magh's are the Reds
of the South.
Check the "Yellow Book of Lechin".
An Coibhi Drui
> Some modern British pseudo-druids like Rollo Maughfling and John
> Rothwell (aka King Arthur) hang around the new-age fringe, celebrating
> historically baseless rituals, theathrical clothing and props such as
> Excalibur swords rescued from junk shops. We all know these types. The
> loud-mouth recidivist nuisances most often found drunk and engaged in
> a great deal of nonsense and divisiveness, usually in pubs or on
> websites such as this. Others like McGrath are more sinister and
> merely use druidry as a veneer to cover their racism. On a more
> civilised plane, more respectable druids preside over the Gorsedd in
> white robes, carrying out rituals which have been developed through a
> combination of occult understanding and guidance. These are not
> mentally ill drunks like the first lot but are they any more correct?
> What was a druid, who were the historic druids and what do they have
> to do with the druids of today? The Queen of England has been a druid
> since 1946 when she was inducted in the Welsh Gorsedd of Bards, which
> organises the National Eisteddfod, and the present Archbishop of
> Canterbury followed suit in 2002. Two fine examples of parasites
> there. One claims a Kingdom and the other claims souls. In the 16th
> century, scholars wrongly credited druids with founding Cambridge
> University and, in the late 19th it was a test case involving a druid,
> William Price, that established the legality of cremation.
>
> The historic druids first emerged two millenniums ago around the Iron
> Age and evidence which remains of their existence and rituals is
> unreliable. Pliny is a mine of misinformation and Caesar, the only
> writer who might have seen the original druids, is an unusually
> devious and self –interested witness. There is not, it transpires, a
> single fact, artefact or image that can be securely related to druidry
> before the early modern period. We know nothing about the original
> druids at all. So when people talk about ‘ritual’ and ‘ceremony’ they
> are just blowing so much hot air if they are claiming it is in any way
> true to what the original druids would have practiced. The truth is we
> do not know and we cannot know.
>
> What the classical sources have left is a legacy of contradictory
> impressions. In some accounts the druids are ferocious warrior priests
> screaming abuse at invading Romans, in others brutal practitioners of
> human sacrifice or, yet again, nature-loving wise men associated with
> oak groves, mistletoe and some sort of symbolic egg. From the 16th
> century onwards, succeeding generations picked and mixed these
> elements according to their own preoccupations just as in Europe and
> America today many druid orders are merely a front for racist
> association. Druidry became by turns a precursor of Christianity, a
> polygamous pagan cult and the basis of modern Germany, depending on
> who employed it’s evocative imagery. Then in 1740, the antiquarian
> William Stukeley added one of the most potent elements to the cocktail
> by crediting the druids with building Stonehenge. It was always a
> contentious claim, virtually disproved by the time druids began to
> celebrate the solstice there in the early 20th century, but it is
> immovably fixed in the British national imagination and indeed in
> modern folklore.
>
> Stukeley’s book, Stonehenge, ushered in the druid century, a flowering
> of scholarship, art and poetry in England. Blake’s Jerusalem and
> Wordsworth’s Prelude both feature druids and in 1774 a musical, Masque
> of the Druids by John Fisher, ran for several months at Covent Garden.
> Such widespread enthusiasm sometimes made historians extravagant with
> the facts and liberal with the truth. William Borlase’s account of
> Cornish druidry of 1754 added five-sided shoes to the traditional
> outfit, and gave a lurid account of nude druidesses and sacrificial
> orgies that did wonders for antiquarian interest in Cornwall. How true
> to the memory of these nutty liars some of our modern brethern are?
>
> The great transforming influence, however, was Edward Williams. An
> amateur scholar, failed shopkeeper and enthusiastic laudanum addict,
> Williams also transformed himself, becoming Lolo Morganwg or Glamorgan
> Bards and Druids as well as quantities of supposedly druidic verse –
> all of which, it transpired only much later, he had written himself.
> By the time the extent of the McGrath-like forgeries were fully
> recognised in the 1920’s, it was too late to untangle him from
> history. The improvised ceremony that he first held on Primrose Hill
> at the autumn equinox in 1792 had grown into the modern Gorsedd of
> Bards.
>
> Nowhere else in Europe, with the exception of Brittany, which has its
> own tradition, did the modern image of druidry take root as it did in
> Britain. While romantic philosophy helped create the athmosphere the
> Act of Union was the main impetus. Before 1707 the idea of Britain as
> a united island was as mythical or metaphorical a construct as the
> druids themselves. Afterwards, druidry offered a shared history and a
> pedigree for that elusive concept, “Britishness”. Despite which,
> Scottish, Welsh and English druids were always significantly different
> and to some extent at cross-purposes. The Scots, who had adopted a
> druid history first and independently in the 16th century, dropped it
> when druids lost their exclusivity and became popular in Wales, where
> they were taken up late but enthusiastically in their most benign
> guise as wise, ancestral bards.
>
> It was in England, though, in the King’s Arms in Poland Street in
> Soho, a pub that survives today, that the decisive step was taken from
> simply studying ancient druids to becoming modern ones. Here in 1781
> Henry Hurle founded the Ancient Order of Druids, which still
> flourishes and once included Winston Churchill among its number. The
> Ancient Order started as little more than a gentlemen’s drinking club.
> Later on, revived druidry often took the form of friendly societies,
> and Georgian druids spent much of their time drinking toasts to each
> other and organising burial clubs.
>
> With the passage of time, however, the empire grew and England
> increasingly dominated Britain. The druids’ image as a fiercely
> independent native race resistant to occupying powers became more
> appealing to the Welsh and less attractive to the English, who began
> to go off druids and to emphasise the savagery and inefficiency of
> “primitive” peoples, preferring to see themselves as latter-day
> Romans.
>
> The first recorded ‘solstice watcher’ at Stonehenge was the Earl of
> Caernarvon. Fired, presumably, by William Stukeley’s 18th century
> research into the alignment of the stones, he travelled there in 1860
> for the midsummer sunrise, only to find himself totally alone. By the
> 1880’s, though, thousands would gather at the site, most of them
> locals, many unruly. It was not until 1912 that druids first turned up
> on midsummer eve to perform their rites.
>
> Today Stonehenge is a melee of drunk and stoned revellers with only a
> sympolic ritual performed by those who try to recreate what intuition
> and reason combined inform them may have been the original Druid
> format. The ‘theatre’ folk like ‘King Arthur’ turn up to avail of the
> attention and free cider and cigarettes which they claim as a ‘tax’
> off unsuspection newbies.
The desultory reference to Stonehenge here by young Hogan of Limerick
( alias ' Cormac MacCarthaigh' who ran away to the Foreign Legion to
escape the Irish Police ! ) spoils an otherwise fine article and is
typical of the envy of his Master , Moriarty, of all those enjoying
Stonehenge - Moriarty hates them all, especially Arthur and Rollo
because he does not control the Stonehenge Druids ! Moriarty flies
into fits of rages against those well-known Druids that he doesn't and
cannot control.
The Irony of Hogan , as an Irish Police ( Garda) Chief Superintendent
( Kevin Donoghue now retired) joked to me, is that he doubted if they
had enough evidence at the time to put Hogan away ! - yet Hogan
panicked and bolted to the Foreign Legion !!! Haw Haw Haw , we had a
good laugh about that.
And now that Hogan ( CormacMacCarthaigh) has fallen under the spell of
Moriarty, he is literally fallen from the frying pan into the fire !
( Hogan is the Fiance of the bould Jessica ' Jes Jes ' Connor, so
basically they're all a family, headed by Con, and only one of the
many Tentacles of Evil that Moriarty does actually control, mostly in
France where he continues to build his criminal empire ) .
Cheers,
Michael.
Rasputina
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's just human nature Charles. If you give somebody the opportunity
to write a 'difinitive' account of history they will generally write
themselves in as the good guy. Look at European history: the Royal
Houses didn't instruct their historians to write about how some filthy
cave dwellers made themselves King, went on a killing and stealing
spree around the world and then claimed they were bringing
Civilisation to the Savages. Look at the Christian Bible: rewritten by
the same Royals and their servants to portray some myth consistent
with their own non-Christian beliefs. Look at ARD: Ardruids and
experts who are nothing more than 'bacon and leek' cooks. Look at this
topic: Wollo and Arfur, a pair of mentally ill men claiming rule over
people.
Onward the sans culottes!