Attention Rod Speed: Your head is firmly implanted in your (well-used) rectum. Please seek medical assistance at once!
Trent
Excerpt:
"FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of one embodiment for the staggered startup of
HDDs 251-254 at an HDD interface. At process block 310, electrical power
is received from the computer system 100 power supply (not shown) at HDDs
251-254. As described above, a platter within an HDD will not immediately
begin the spinning cycle upon being powered up. The spinning cycle will
not begin as long as the RESET signal received from programmable logic 260
is asserted."
Doh!
Arno
> Excerpt:
> Doh!
Interestingly, this is both intuitive and several people here
knew it.
However, do not worry too much about Rod, he is a long-term regular
here and he used to be much worse. Today he often gives reasonable
or even good advice. He just sometimes cannot admit it when he is
wrong.
Arno
Timothy Daniels
Hmm... What's the connection with "Rod Speed"? Are you saying
that the inventor, Glenn A. Henriquez, is the hand up "Rod Speed's"
ass?
*TimDaniels*
Rod Speed
Trent desperately attempted to bullshit its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Timothy Daniels
> However, do not worry too much about Rod, he is a long-term regular
> here and he used to be much worse. Today he often gives reasonable
> or even good advice. He just sometimes cannot admit it when he is
> wrong.
"Sometimes"? <LOL>
*TimDaniels*
Ed Light
--
Ed Light
Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com
Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com
Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
Send spam to the FTC at
sp...@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
Arno
> "Sometimes"? <LOL>
;-)
Arno
Keith Wilby
news:7cue3gF...@mid.individual.net...
> Some gut
>
>
Some predictable jackass spewing forth the same old drivel because it's too
set in it's ways and unimaginative to come up with something original. I'm
sure the alarming and disturbing "child" reference will follow soon.
Rod Speed
Keith Wilby wrote just what you'd expect from a terminal fuckwit.
Ed Light
Bilky White
news:0067180a$0$19499$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Just filter Roddy out. It's a really nice group that way.
> --
The boring cnut cures my insomnia ;-)
Bilky White
> just what you'd expect from a terminal fuckwit.
>
>
What's one of those then? I'm not familiar with the term. It appears to be
meaningless.
Rod Speed
Bilky White wrote just what you'd expect from a desperately
cowering gutless fuckwit.
Bilky White
> Some pathetic little gutless desperately cowering behind
> Bilky White wrote just what you'd expect from a desperately
>
>
Were you bullied at school? Or were you the bully and nobody liked you?
Did your mummy not love you?
There must be some reason(s) for your self-loathing and low self-esteem
which seems to cause you to lower yourself even further into name-calling
and swearing in a technical forum. Does it make you feel grown up and
powerful because you feel impotent and utterly useless in the real world
where you knock on people's doors and then run away? Do you have templates
set up with the insults and abuse pre-populated? It would save a lot of
typing if you did but it would also go some way to indicate how lonely you
must be, tapping away at that keyboard and fondling the only friends you
have, your precious hard disk drives. Oh well, go to your templates now,
choose one at random and hit send if it will make you feel better, important
and significant.
Rod Speed
Bilky White wrote just what you'd expect from a desperately
Bilky White
Yep, there it is. Baiting you like this is quite amusing, I think I'll do
some more, but not today, I'm seeing friends today Roddie. Real warm human
friends and not clanky bits of metal that are used to store data. I'll bait
you again when I'm good and ready and you'll respond in the usual way, in
fact I demand it. OK? Do it NOW Roddie, respond NOW from your darkened
room full of disk drives and cobwebs with one of your amusing templates!
Rod Speed
Bilky White
That's right my little puppet, dance, DANCE. Do it again, NOW!
Rod Speed
John Turco
>
> Some pathetic little gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind Bilky White
> wrote just what you'd expect from a desperately cowering gutless fuckwit.
Hello, Rod:
In a different post, within this same subject thread, "Bilky White" referred
to you as a "boring cnut."
Okay, what's a "cnut" (boring or otherwise)? It seems that these pompous Poms
can barely master their own language, nowadays!
I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not? <g>
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Some pathetic little gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind Bilky White
>> wrote just what you'd expect from a desperately cowering gutless fuckwit.
> Hello, Rod:
> In a different post, within this same subject thread,
> "Bilky White" referred to you as a "boring cnut."
> Okay, what's a "cnut" (boring or otherwise)? It seems that these
> pompous Poms can barely master their own language, nowadays!
> I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not? <g>
Nar, they never did, just some bastardised form of it.
Blame that on those damned Normans, bloody frogs.
Bilky White
news:4A7679AC...@concentric.net...
>
> In a different post, within this same subject thread, "Bilky White"
> referred
> to you as a "boring cnut."
>
> Okay, what's a "cnut" (boring or otherwise)?
Oh dear. Try moving the "n" to the right.
> It seems that these pompous Poms
> can barely master their own language, nowadays!
Oh dear oh dear. How's the cricket going?
>
> I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not? <g>
>
Only those of us who aren't chavs.
Bilky White
> Some pathetic little gutless desperately cowering behind
> Bilky White wrote just what you'd expect from a desperately
>
That's it my little retard, DANCE. Now give us a twirl Roddie me old
muppet puppet. TWIRL dammit, NOW!!!
Rod Speed
Bilky White wrote just what you'd expect from a desperately cowering gutless fuckwit pom.
Bilky White
> Some pathetic little gutless pom desperately cowering behind
> Bilky White wrote just what you'd expect from a desperately cowering
>
And finally my little racist muppet puppet, since I have grown weary of you
and, unlike you I have real friends and no time for this, I DEMAND that you
have the last word. Come on cobbah, reply with the final retarded word NOW!
Rod Speed
John Turco
Hello, Rod:
Recall, though, that those French invaders from Normandy, had originated
in Scandinavia; thus, they were "bloody Vikings," once upon a time.
Of course, "bloody" always had a more literal meaning, where the violent
Vikes were concerned! <g>
John Turco
>
> "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:4A7679AC...@concentric.net...
> >
> > In a different post, within this same subject thread, "Bilky White"
> > referred to you as a "boring cnut."
> >
> > Okay, what's a "cnut" (boring or otherwise)?
>
> Oh dear. Try moving the "n" to the right.
No kiddin', Corky? I was quite aware of your typo...just as I'd been equally
certain of the puerility of your recent public attacks on Rod Speed.
The only true question is, do you have anything positive, to contribute to
<news:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage>?
> > It seems that these pompous Poms can barely master their own language,
> > nowadays!
>
> Oh dear oh dear. How's the cricket going?
Haven't experienced any problems with crickets, lately. Still, I've spied
a few ants, crawling around the house, this summer.
> > I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not? <g>
> >
>
> Only those of us who aren't chavs.
Oh, so, you >don't< speak English, after all? (In other words, what the hell
is a "chav," might I ask?)
Bilky White
>
> I was quite aware of your typo...
So why ask?
> just as I'd been equally
> certain of the puerility of your recent public attacks on Rod Speed.
>
Attacks? I see no attacks other than the one levied against Trent by
Roddie, although I suppose you *could* argue that the OP was an attack.
> The only true question is, do you have anything positive, to contribute to
> <news:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage>?
>
>> > It seems that these pompous Poms can barely master their own language,
>> > nowadays!
>>
>> Oh dear oh dear. How's the cricket going?
>
> Haven't experienced any problems with crickets, lately. Still, I've spied
> a few ants, crawling around the house, this summer.
For someone critisizing another's command of English that's an awful lot of
redundant comas.
>
>> > I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not? <g>
>> >
>>
>> Only those of us who aren't chavs.
>
> Oh, so, you >don't< speak English, after all? (In other words, what the
> hell
> is a "chav," might I ask?)
>
Ask away but you might find Google useful in this respect.
> --
> Cordially,
Really?
> John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
>
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> John Turco wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Some pathetic little gutless fuckwit desperately
>>>> cowering behind Bilky White wrote just what you'd
>>>> expect from a desperately cowering gutless fuckwit.
>>> In a different post, within this same subject thread,
>>> "Bilky White" referred to you as a "boring cnut."
>>> Okay, what's a "cnut" (boring or otherwise)? It seems that these
>>> pompous Poms can barely master their own language, nowadays!
>>> I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not? <g>
>> Nar, they never did, just some bastardised form of it.
>> Blame that on those damned Normans, bloody frogs.
> Recall, though, that those French invaders from Normandy, had originated
> in Scandinavia; thus, they were "bloody Vikings," once upon a time.
Sure, thats where the word Normans comes from, its a contraction of Norse Men.
> Of course, "bloody" always had a more literal meaning,
> where the violent Vikes were concerned! <g>
And then there's the raping and pillaging in spades.
Their funeral events were a tad over the top too.
Rod Speed
>>> In a different post, within this same subject thread,
>>> "Bilky White" referred to you as a "boring cnut."
>>> Okay, what's a "cnut" (boring or otherwise)?
>> Oh dear. Try moving the "n" to the right.
> No kiddin', Corky? I was quite aware of your typo...just as I'd been equally
> certain of the puerility of your recent public attacks on Rod Speed.
> The only true question is, do you have anything positive, to
> contribute to <news:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage>?
Thats a bit cruel, what are you going to do when he bursts into tears ?
>>> It seems that these pompous Poms can barely
>>> master their own language, nowadays!
>> Oh dear oh dear. How's the cricket going?
> Haven't experienced any problems with crickets, lately. Still,
> I've spied a few ants, crawling around the house, this summer.
>>> I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not?
>>> <g>
>> Only those of us who aren't chavs.
> Oh, so, you >don't< speak English, after all? (In other
> words, what the hell is a "chav," might I ask?)
Fark, this turns up with the new google auto completion now
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=chavs+means
One hell of a fucking resource.
Bilky White
>
> The only true question is, do you have anything positive, to contribute to
> <news:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage>?
>
Oooo, I missed that bit. More redundant comas and I'm fairly sure there
must be other true questions but FWIW at least you now know what a chav is.
Who knows, you may even be one!
Rod Speed
> John Turco <jt...@concentric.net> wrote
>> The only true question is, do you have anything positive, to
>> contribute to <news:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage>?
> Oooo, I missed that bit. More redundant comas and I'm fairly sure there must be other true questions but FWIW at
> least you now know what a chav is. Who knows, you may even be one!
Tad unlikely given that there are no councils in the US, fuckwit.
Bilky White
http://www.uscib.org/
http://www.cfr.org/
http://www.grains.org/
David Brown
> John Turco wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> John Turco wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not? <g>
>
>>> Nar, they never did, just some bastardised form of it.
>
>>> Blame that on those damned Normans, bloody frogs.
>
>> Recall, though, that those French invaders from Normandy, had originated
>> in Scandinavia; thus, they were "bloody Vikings," once upon a time.
>
> Sure, thats where the word Normans comes from, its a contraction of Norse Men.
>
>> Of course, "bloody" always had a more literal meaning,
>> where the violent Vikes were concerned! <g>
>
> And then there's the raping and pillaging in spades.
>
> Their funeral events were a tad over the top too.
>
Most Vikings expeditions to Britain (and France, and most other places)
were for trade and/or settlement, not for raids or other violence. They
got their historical reputation because many of their raids were against
churches and monasteries, since these had all the gold. And since
virtually the only people who could write at the time were churchmen and
monks, the written history is severely biased.
I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people - merely that
they were like most others at the time (they liked to farm good land,
make good trades, and steal from people with lots of gold and poor
defences).
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> The only true question is, do you have anything positive, to
>>>> contribute to <news:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage>?
>>> Oooo, I missed that bit. More redundant comas and I'm fairly sure
>>> there must be other true questions but FWIW at least you now know
>>> what a chav is. Who knows, you may even be one!
>> Tad unlikely given that there are no councils in the US, fuckwit.
None of those provide housing, fuckwit.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> John Turco wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> John Turco wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not? <g>
>>>> Nar, they never did, just some bastardised form of it.
>>>> Blame that on those damned Normans, bloody frogs.
>>> Recall, though, that those French invaders from Normandy, had originated in Scandinavia; thus, they were "bloody
>>> Vikings," once upon a time.
>> Sure, thats where the word Normans comes from, its a contraction of Norse Men.
>>> Of course, "bloody" always had a more literal meaning,
>>> where the violent Vikes were concerned! <g>
>> And then there's the raping and pillaging in spades.
>> Their funeral events were a tad over the top too.
> Most Vikings expeditions to Britain (and France, and most other places) were for trade and/or settlement, not for
> raids or other violence.
Expeditions aint raids.
> They got their historical reputation because many of their raids were against churches and monasteries, since these
> had all the gold.
And there were a hell of a lot more of them than there were settlement expeditions.
> And since virtually the only people who could write at the time were churchmen and monks, the written history is
> severely biased.
Pity about the Norse sagas.
> I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people
Just as well, we'd piss ourselves laughing if you tried that.
> - merely that they were like most others at the time
Like hell they were on those raids.
> (they liked to farm good land, make good trades, and steal from people with lots of gold and poor defences).
They were a hell of a lot more gung ho and effective about the last than anyone else except the mongols were.
Arno
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> John Turco wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> John Turco wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not? <g>
>>
>>>> Nar, they never did, just some bastardised form of it.
>>
>>>> Blame that on those damned Normans, bloody frogs.
>>
>>> Recall, though, that those French invaders from Normandy, had originated
>>> in Scandinavia; thus, they were "bloody Vikings," once upon a time.
>>
>> Sure, thats where the word Normans comes from, its a contraction of Norse Men.
>>
>>> Of course, "bloody" always had a more literal meaning,
>>> where the violent Vikes were concerned! <g>
>>
>> And then there's the raping and pillaging in spades.
>>
>> Their funeral events were a tad over the top too.
>>
> Most Vikings expeditions to Britain (and France, and most other places)
> were for trade and/or settlement, not for raids or other violence. They
> got their historical reputation because many of their raids were against
> churches and monasteries, since these had all the gold. And since
> virtually the only people who could write at the time were churchmen and
> monks, the written history is severely biased.
Interesting and entirely credible.
> I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people - merely that
> they were like most others at the time (they liked to farm good land,
> make good trades, and steal from people with lots of gold and poor
> defences).
Yea, that was going on for most of human history. The Romans even
build a large empire on that approach, but nobody calls them
"bloody". Possibly related reasons as above.
Arno
Jim Jones
> David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> John Turco wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> John Turco wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not? <g>
>>>>> Nar, they never did, just some bastardised form of it.
>>>>> Blame that on those damned Normans, bloody frogs.
>>>> Recall, though, that those French invaders from Normandy, had originated
>>>> in Scandinavia; thus, they were "bloody Vikings," once upon a time.
>>> Sure, thats where the word Normans comes from, its a contraction of Norse Men.
>>>> Of course, "bloody" always had a more literal meaning,
>>>> where the violent Vikes were concerned! <g>
>>> And then there's the raping and pillaging in spades.
>>> Their funeral events were a tad over the top too.
>> Most Vikings expeditions to Britain (and France, and most other
>> places) were for trade and/or settlement, not for raids or other
>> violence. They got their historical reputation because many of
>> their raids were against churches and monasteries, since these had
>> all the gold. And since virtually the only people who could write
>> at the time were churchmen and monks, the written history is
>> severely biased.
> Interesting and entirely credible.
Nope, he's forgotten about the sagas. They just had an oral tradition instead.
>> I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people - merely
>> that they were like most others at the time (they liked to farm good
>> land, make good trades, and steal from people with lots of gold and
>> poor defences).
> Yea, that was going on for most of human history. The Romans even
> build a large empire on that approach, but nobody calls them "bloody".
Plenty do the mongols.
For good reasons too, there are STILL massive great piles of skulls
in stone cairns left from some of their most gung ho operations.
The reason the romans dont get called that is because they were quite
happy to absorb those who werent stupid enough to try resisting them.
They could be pretty gung ho tho, have a look at what they did to Boudica sometime.
> Possibly related reasons as above.
Nope. There were no written historys of the survivors of the mongols to speak of.
Bilky White
> Bilky White wrote> None of those provide housing, .
>
So what? You said there were no councils in the USA and I proved you wrong.
I didn't have to swear either!
David Brown
I haven't forgotten about the sagas. The sagas (both oral and written)
had several purposes. They covered religious stories, they had some
real history, they celebrated famous Vikings, and they were - perhaps
above all else - entertainment. There are plenty of sagas covering
wars, battles, and raids - but very little covering such every day
events as trading or farming. These are things that everyone knew about
and would hardly be a subject for a song or a tale at a king's feast.
Just like the British churches' records, the sagas are therefore very
biased in the sort of historical information they provide.
The extent of the Vikings' peaceful (or at least /relatively/ peaceful)
dealings in Britain can be seen in the huge influence they left behind -
language, place names, peoples names, culture, and descendants, as well
as archaeological evidence and non-church writings.
>>> I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people - merely
>>> that they were like most others at the time (they liked to farm good
>>> land, make good trades, and steal from people with lots of gold and
>>> poor defences).
>
>> Yea, that was going on for most of human history. The Romans even
>> build a large empire on that approach, but nobody calls them "bloody".
>
> Plenty do the mongols.
>
I'm slightly confused by what you write here - it reads as though you
think the Mongols called the Romans "bloody", but I'm assuming you meant
that the Mongols were another group who have a reputation of being "bloody".
Yes, the Mongols killed a great many people and destroyed a great many
cities, and are certainly justly known for their violence and
mercilessness. It's worth noting, however, that their ruthlessness was
sometimes a way to /avoid/ violence - they would totally obliterate one
city in an area, sometimes causing nearby cities to surrender without a
fight and therefore with minimal casualties. The total killed was then
less than it might have been with a more "traditional" approach. Of
course, the Mongols did this because it was easier, not to avoid deaths.
> For good reasons too, there are STILL massive great piles of skulls
> in stone cairns left from some of their most gung ho operations.
>
> The reason the romans dont get called that is because they were quite
> happy to absorb those who werent stupid enough to try resisting them.
>
The Romans took full control of many of the areas they conquered, and
generally always considered themselves to be a separate people ruling
subject states. They did not "absorb" other people except as slaves or
peasants (though the longer term subject states gradually became more
and more "romanized"). While many countries they conquered had little
chance against the Roman armies, and arguably benefited from the Roman
presence (peace between rival tribes, roads, law and order, etc.), it
was hardly "stupid" to resist them.
> They could be pretty gung ho tho, have a look at what they did to Boudica sometime.
>
>> Possibly related reasons as above.
>
> Nope. There were no written historys of the survivors of the mongols to speak of.
>
Regarding the Romans (and many other people), it is undoubtedly the case
that reputations they have now is heavily influenced by those that wrote
records at or around the time - whether it be the attacking forces,
their victims, or third parties. I think that how historical people and
events are perceived, and how and why that perception changes over time,
is often as interesting as the history itself.
"History will treat me kindly. I know, for I shall write it".
Winston Churchill.
Rod Speed
>> None of those provide housing, fuckwit.
> So what?
So you have a problem with the H in chav, fuckwit.
Rod Speed
>>> Interesting and entirely credible.
Corse you did. That stupid claim about the only people
who could write at that time were churchmen and monks
clearly ignores the sagas and is just plain wrong as well.
> The sagas (both oral and written) had several purposes. They covered religious stories, they had some real history,
> they celebrated famous Vikings, and they were - perhaps
> above all else - entertainment. There are plenty of sagas covering wars, battles, and raids - but very little
> covering such every day events as trading or farming.
Another pig ignorant lie.
> These are things that everyone knew about and would hardly be a subject for a song or a tale at a king's feast.
Pity about your pig ignorant claim that the only people
who could write at that time were churchmen and monks
clearly ignores the sagas and is just plain wrong as well.
> Just like the British churches' records, the sagas are therefore very biased in the sort of historical information
> they provide.
Pity about your pig ignorant claim that the only people
who could write at that time were churchmen and monks
clearly ignores the sagas and is just plain wrong as well.
> The extent of the Vikings' peaceful (or at least /relatively/ peaceful) dealings in Britain can be seen in the huge
> influence they left behind - language, place names, peoples names, culture, and descendants, as well as
> archaeological evidence and non-church writings.
Pity about your pig ignorant claim that the only people
who could write at that time were churchmen and monks
clearly ignores the sagas and is just plain wrong as well.
>>>> I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people - merely that they were like most others at the time
>>>> (they liked to farm good land, make good trades, and steal from people with lots of gold and poor defences).
>>> Yea, that was going on for most of human history. The Romans even
>>> build a large empire on that approach, but nobody calls them "bloody".
>> Plenty do with the mongols.
> I'm slightly confused by what you write here - it reads as though you think the Mongols called the Romans "bloody",
Like hell it does.
> but I'm assuming you meant that the Mongols were another group who have a reputation of being "bloody".
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist pathetic excuses for a bullshit artist ?
> Yes, the Mongols killed a great many people and destroyed a great many cities, and are certainly justly known for
> their violence and mercilessness.
So much for your terminally silly claim about who got to do the written history.
> It's worth noting, however, that their ruthlessness was sometimes a way to /avoid/ violence - they would totally
> obliterate one city in an area, sometimes causing nearby cities to surrender without a fight and therefore with
> minimal casualties.
So much for your terminally silly claim about who got to do the written history.
> The total killed was then less than it might have been with a more "traditional" approach.
Mindlessly silly.
> Of course, the Mongols did this because it was easier, not to avoid deaths.
Even sillier.
>> For good reasons too, there are STILL massive great piles of skulls
>> in stone cairns left from some of their most gung ho operations.
>> The reason the romans dont get called that is because they were quite
>> happy to absorb those who werent stupid enough to try resisting them.
> The Romans took full control of many of the areas they conquered, and generally always considered themselves to be a
> separate people ruling subject states.
Utterly mangled all over again.
> They did not "absorb" other people except as slaves or peasants
Have fun explaining the hordes that ended up in their military system.
> (though the longer term subject states gradually became more and more "romanized"). While many countries they
> conquered had little
> chance against the Roman armies, and arguably benefited from the Roman presence (peace between rival tribes, roads,
> law and order, etc.), it was hardly "stupid" to resist them.
Corse it was when there was no chance of prevailing against them.
>> They could be pretty gung ho tho, have a look at what they did to Boudica sometime.
>>> Possibly related reasons as above.
>> Nope. There were no written historys of the survivors of the mongols to speak of.
> Regarding the Romans (and many other people), it is undoubtedly the case that reputations they have now is heavily
> influenced by those that wrote records at or around the time -
Have fun explaining the mongols where fuck all did that.
> whether it be the attacking forces, their victims, or third parties.
> I think that how historical people and events are perceived, and how and why that perception changes over time, is
> often as interesting as the history itself.
Sure.
> "History will treat me kindly. I know, for I shall write it".
> Winston Churchill.
In fact it didnt. Because a hell of a lot more than him wrote it.
Bilky White
> Bilky White wrote:
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Bilky White wrote
>
>>>> http://www.uscib.org/
>>>> http://www.cfr.org/
>>>> http://www.grains.org/
>
>
>> So what?
>
> So you have a problem with the H in chav, .
>
>
There is no H in "chav" else it would be "cHav", which it is not. Perhaps
you have a problem with the "wrong" in "Rod Speed".
Rod Speed
Bilky White desperately attempted to bullshit its way out of
its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
John Turco
>
> "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:4A7FB718...@concentric.net...
> >
> > I was quite aware of your typo...
>
> So why ask?
It was a joke, old chav.
> > just as I'd been equally certain of the puerility of your recent public
> > attacks on Rod Speed.
>
> Attacks? I see no attacks other than the one levied against Trent by
> Roddie, although I suppose you *could* argue that the OP was an attack.
"Trent" is a troll...what are >you<?
<edited for brevity>
> >> > It seems that these pompous Poms can barely master their own language,
> >> > nowadays!
> >>
> >> Oh dear oh dear. How's the cricket going?
> >
> > Haven't experienced any problems with crickets, lately. Still, I've spied
> > a few ants, crawling around the house, this summer.
>
> For someone critisizing another's command of English that's an awful lot of
> redundant comas.
No, that's called "punctuation" -- better too many comas, than too few. This
way, confusion can be more easily avoided.
<edited>
John Turco
>
> John Turco wrote
<heavily edited for brevity>
> >>> I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not? <g>
>
> >> Nar, they never did, just some bastardised form of it.
>
> >> Blame that on those damned Normans, bloody frogs.
>
> > Recall, though, that those French invaders from Normandy, had originated
> > in Scandinavia; thus, they were "bloody Vikings," once upon a time.
>
> Sure, thats where the word Normans comes from, its a contraction of Norse
> Men.
Hello, Rod:
Obviously. <g>
> > Of course, "bloody" always had a more literal meaning, where the
> > violent Vikes were concerned! <g>
>
> And then there's the raping and pillaging in spades.
>
> Their funeral events were a tad over the top too.
Well, then, I guess that blonds >did< have more fun, after all! :-P
John Turco
>
> John Turco wrote
> > Bilky White wrote
> >> John Turco <jt...@concentric.net> wrote
<edited>
> >>> Okay, what's a "cnut" (boring or otherwise)?
>
> >> Oh dear. Try moving the "n" to the right.
>
> > No kiddin', Corky? I was quite aware of your typo...just as I'd been
> > equally certain of the puerility of your recent public attacks on Rod
> > Speed.
>
> > The only true question is, do you have anything positive, to
> > contribute to <news:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage>?
>
> Thats a bit cruel, what are you going to do when he bursts into tears ?
Hello, Rod:
You're so right...I'm an utterly wicked person. <g>
<edited>
> >>> I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not?
> >>> <g>
>
> >> Only those of us who aren't chavs.
>
> > Oh, so, you >don't< speak English, after all? (In other words,
> > what the hell is a "chav," might I ask?)
>
> Fark, this turns up with the new google auto completion now
>
> http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=chavs+means
>
> One hell of a fucking resource.
Thanks, for the link. It enabled me to learn that "Bilky White" fits
the decription of a "chav" to such an incredible degree, that he might
be the genuine prototype of this grubby beast. ;-)
John Turco
It's now painfully evident that you're >not< willing to offer anything of
value, to this newsgroup.
John Turco
<heavily edited for brevity>
> Most Vikings expeditions to Britain (and France, and most other places)
> were for trade and/or settlement, not for raids or other violence. They
> got their historical reputation because many of their raids were against
> churches and monasteries, since these had all the gold. And since
> virtually the only people who could write at the time were churchmen and
> monks, the written history is severely biased.
>
> I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people - merely that
> they were like most others at the time (they liked to farm good land,
> make good trades, and steal from people with lots of gold and poor
> defences).
Hello, David:
Going soft on those naughty Norsemen, eh? You've been living in Norway,
far too long! <g>
Seriously, the Vikings were a relatively small Scandanavian subgroup,
as the vast majority of the Nordic countries' inhabitants were either
(mostly peaceful) farmers or fisherman.
The Vikings, themselves, were a violent people, living in a turbulent
time. They've had their counterparts throughout human history, with
the German Nazis being the most notorious of the modern age.
Coincidentally or not, Adolf Hitler and his henchmen idolized the
Vikings.
John Turco
<heavily edited for brevity>
> >> I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people - merely
> >> that they were like most others at the time (they liked to farm good
> >> land, make good trades, and steal from people with lots of gold and
> >> poor defences).
>
> > Yea, that was going on for most of human history. The Romans even
> > build a large empire on that approach, but nobody calls them "bloody".
>
> Plenty do the mongols.
>
> For good reasons too, there are STILL massive great piles of skulls
> in stone cairns left from some of their most gung ho operations.
>
> The reason the romans dont get called that is because they were quite
> happy to absorb those who werent stupid enough to try resisting them.
<edited>
Hello, Rod:
Arno Wagner is Swiss -- and thus, he should remain neutral, within this
international debate. :-)
Besides, there's no real comparison between the Vikings and the Romans.
The former were a virtual blip on the radar screen, whereas the latter
built one the greatest civilizations in history.
David Brown
> David Brown wrote:
>
> <heavily edited for brevity>
>
>> Most Vikings expeditions to Britain (and France, and most other places)
>> were for trade and/or settlement, not for raids or other violence. They
>> got their historical reputation because many of their raids were against
>> churches and monasteries, since these had all the gold. And since
>> virtually the only people who could write at the time were churchmen and
>> monks, the written history is severely biased.
>>
>> I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people - merely that
>> they were like most others at the time (they liked to farm good land,
>> make good trades, and steal from people with lots of gold and poor
>> defences).
>
>
> Hello, David:
>
> Going soft on those naughty Norsemen, eh? You've been living in Norway,
> far too long! <g>
>
> Seriously, the Vikings were a relatively small Scandanavian subgroup,
> as the vast majority of the Nordic countries' inhabitants were either
> (mostly peaceful) farmers or fisherman.
>
When people refer to "the Vikings", especially in the context of raids,
they are thinking of the warriors from the aristocracy who went off in
search of adventure, glory and profit (including raiding, conquering,
exploring, trading, and settling new lands). As you say, most of
Scandinavia's inhabitants - like most people in any country at the time
- were mostly peaceful, and had enough trouble scraping a living from
the land and sea without having to waste money, energy and lives in war.
While they obviously did not have the same level of cultural influence
as the Romans, the Vikings were still very significant in the history of
many parts of north west Europe. Their kings ruled parts of Britain for
a while, and their cultural and genetic heritage is seen in many places,
especially in Scotland. And of course the Normans (descended from
Danish Vikings) were the last invaders to conquer England.
Their explorations also contributed to general European geographical
knowledge - I think it is likely (though this is speculation) that
Columbus had strong hopes of finding land roughly were he did find it,
because he knew of Viking expeditions to Newfoundland.
Viking culture (especially in their homeland, but also exported to other
countries) had some significant "modern" traits that may have influenced
later societies, especially in Scandinavia. They had a much more
democratic judicial system than many of their contemporaries, with feuds
or disagreements being resolved in courts with a judge, lawyers, and
peers. Women had far more influence and power - when a woman's husband
was away on a Viking expedition, she had full legal authority over their
estate which was owned jointly. And if she caught him cheating on her
with another woman (foreign women and slaves don't count, of course) she
could demand his arrest and execution. Perhaps this explains why modern
Scandinavian societies are less misogynist than other European countries.
I snipped the next bit of your post, before someone invokes Godwin's law...
David Brown
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> John Turco wrote
>
>
>>> violent Vikes were concerned! <g>
>> And then there's the raping and pillaging in spades.
>>
>> Their funeral events were a tad over the top too.
>
> Well, then, I guess that blonds >did< have more fun, after all! :-P
>
At one stage at least, when a Viking died his fortune was split in
three. One third went to the state in death taxes, one third went to
his inheritors, and the remaining third was used to pay for the funeral
feast.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> John Turco wrote
>>>>> I mean, people still >do< speak English, in Britain...do they not? <g>
>>>> Nar, they never did, just some bastardised form of it.
>>>> Blame that on those damned Normans, bloody frogs.
>>> Recall, though, that those French invaders from Normandy, had
>>> originated in Scandinavia; thus, they were "bloody Vikings," once
>>> upon a time.
>> Sure, thats where the word Normans comes from, its a contraction of Norse Men.
> Obviously. <g>
>>> Of course, "bloody" always had a more literal meaning, where the
>>> violent Vikes were concerned! <g>
>> And then there's the raping and pillaging in spades.
>> Their funeral events were a tad over the top too.
> Well, then, I guess that blonds >did< have more fun, after all! :-P
Depends on whether your idea of fun involves going up in flames on hubby's funeral pyre, alive.
Jim Jones
> Jim Jones wrote:
>>
>> Arno wrote
>>> David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote
>
> <heavily edited for brevity>
>
>>>> I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people - merely
>>>> that they were like most others at the time (they liked to farm
>>>> good land, make good trades, and steal from people with lots of
>>>> gold and poor defences).
>>
>>> Yea, that was going on for most of human history. The Romans even
>>> build a large empire on that approach, but nobody calls them
>>> "bloody".
>>
>> Plenty do the mongols.
>>
>> For good reasons too, there are STILL massive great piles of skulls
>> in stone cairns left from some of their most gung ho operations.
>>
>> The reason the romans dont get called that is because they were quite
>> happy to absorb those who werent stupid enough to try resisting them.
> Arno Wagner is Swiss -- and thus, he should remain neutral, within this international debate. :-)
He's a kraut swiss, seig heil.
> Besides, there's no real comparison between the Vikings and the
> Romans. The former were a virtual blip on the radar screen, whereas
> the latter built one the greatest civilizations in history.
Sure, but that isnt the reason why they arent called bloody.
Rod Speed
> John Turco wrote
>> David Brown wrote
>>> Most Vikings expeditions to Britain (and France, and most other
>>> places) were for trade and/or settlement, not for raids or other
>>> violence. They got their historical reputation because many of
>>> their raids were against churches and monasteries, since these had
>>> all the gold. And since virtually the only people who could write
>>> at the time were churchmen and monks, the written history is
>>> severely biased.
>>> I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people - merely
>>> that they were like most others at the time (they liked to farm
>>> good land, make good trades, and steal from people with lots of
>>> gold and poor defences).
>> Going soft on those naughty Norsemen, eh? You've been living in Norway, far too long! <g>
>> Seriously, the Vikings were a relatively small Scandanavian subgroup,
>> as the vast majority of the Nordic countries' inhabitants were either
>> (mostly peaceful) farmers or fisherman.
> When people refer to "the Vikings", especially in the context of raids, they are thinking of the warriors from the
> aristocracy
Wrong on that last.
> who went off in search of adventure, glory and profit (including raiding, conquering, exploring, trading, and settling
> new lands). As you say, most of Scandinavia's inhabitants - like most people in any country at the time - were mostly
> peaceful, and had enough trouble scraping a living from the land and sea without having to waste money, energy and
> lives in war.
There's a reason that the viking raids happened, and didnt with other similar groups.
> While they obviously did not have the same level of cultural influence as the Romans, the Vikings were still very
> significant in the history of many parts of north west Europe. Their kings ruled parts of Britain for a while,
And essentially did forever with the Norman invasion.
> and their cultural and genetic heritage is seen in many places, especially in Scotland. And of course the Normans
> (descended
> from Danish Vikings) were the last invaders to conquer England.
And those Normans certainly were not just the aristocracy of Danemark.
> Their explorations also contributed to general European geographical
> knowledge - I think it is likely (though this is speculation) that
> Columbus had strong hopes of finding land roughly were he did find it, because he knew of Viking expeditions to
> Newfoundland.
That is just plain wrong. He hoped to find asia and was stupid
enough to believe the wrong version of the size of the earth.
> Viking culture (especially in their homeland, but also exported to
> other countries) had some significant "modern" traits that may have
> influenced later societies, especially in Scandinavia. They had a
> much more democratic judicial system than many of their
> contemporaries, with feuds or disagreements being resolved in courts
> with a judge, lawyers, and peers. Women had far more influence and
> power - when a woman's husband was away on a Viking expedition, she
> had full legal authority over their estate which was owned jointly. And if she caught him cheating on her with another
> woman (foreign
> women and slaves don't count, of course) she could demand his arrest
> and execution. Perhaps this explains why modern Scandinavian
> societies are less misogynist than other European countries.
Or perhaps not.
David Brown
> David Brown wrote
>> John Turco wrote
>>> David Brown wrote
>
>>>> Most Vikings expeditions to Britain (and France, and most other
>>>> places) were for trade and/or settlement, not for raids or
>>>> other violence. They got their historical reputation because
>>>> many of their raids were against churches and monasteries,
>>>> since these had all the gold. And since virtually the only
>>>> people who could write at the time were churchmen and monks,
>>>> the written history is severely biased.
>
>>>> I'm not claiming the Vikings purely were a peaceful people -
>>>> merely that they were like most others at the time (they liked
>>>> to farm good land, make good trades, and steal from people with
>>>> lots of gold and poor defences).
>
>>> Going soft on those naughty Norsemen, eh? You've been living in
>>> Norway, far too long! <g>
>
>>> Seriously, the Vikings were a relatively small Scandanavian
>>> subgroup, as the vast majority of the Nordic countries'
>>> inhabitants were either (mostly peaceful) farmers or fisherman.
>
>> When people refer to "the Vikings", especially in the context of
>> raids, they are thinking of the warriors from the aristocracy
>
> Wrong on that last.
>
Scandinavian society at the time was divided into three main layers. At
the bottom were the "trells" - basically slaves, many of whom were
captive foreigners. In the middle were the peasants - free people, but
owning no land (though possibly owning a house or workshop). This group
included artisans and craftsmen as well as tenant farmers, fishermen,
etc. At the top were the "aristocracy", who owned the land. The term
"aristocracy" here does not correspond directly to its use in other
cultures - it does not imply a title, for example (though titled nobles
were from this layer of society). I can't think of an exact equivalent
term - perhaps "upper class" would be better. Farming was often
organised around large farmsteads - the owning family would be part of
this upper social layer, although a similar farm owner in Britain would
not be considered an aristocrat.
And when Vikings settled in other countries, they obviously took lots of
non-Vikings with them.
>> who went off in search of adventure, glory and profit (including
>> raiding, conquering, exploring, trading, and settling new lands).
>> As you say, most of Scandinavia's inhabitants - like most people in
>> any country at the time - were mostly peaceful, and had enough
>> trouble scraping a living from the land and sea without having to
>> waste money, energy and lives in war.
>
> There's a reason that the viking raids happened, and didnt with other
> similar groups.
>
There's a few reasons. One is that the land was relatively poor in
Scandinavia, meaning that they had more to gain by foreign trade and
foreign raids. The other is that they were excellent shipbuilders and
sailors. You don't hear much about Germanic peoples of the time who
raided or traded with their neighbours on foot or horseback - you hear
about the Vikings partly because it was over longer distances and with a
wider range of targets. It is also because of the sea travel that the
exchanges were so one-sided - no one (except other Vikings) came to
Scandinavia.
>> While they obviously did not have the same level of cultural
>> influence as the Romans, the Vikings were still very significant in
>> the history of many parts of north west Europe. Their kings ruled
>> parts of Britain for a while,
>
> And essentially did forever with the Norman invasion.
>
In a sense, yes - although the Normans were Viking descendants rather
than Vikings, and were aligned with France.
>> and their cultural and genetic heritage is seen in many places,
>> especially in Scotland. And of course the Normans (descended from
>> Danish Vikings) were the last invaders to conquer England.
>
> And those Normans certainly were not just the aristocracy of
> Danemark.
>
Correct.
>> Their explorations also contributed to general European
>> geographical knowledge - I think it is likely (though this is
>> speculation) that Columbus had strong hopes of finding land roughly
>> were he did find it, because he knew of Viking expeditions to
>> Newfoundland.
>
> That is just plain wrong. He hoped to find asia and was stupid enough
> to believe the wrong version of the size of the earth.
>
He certainly /told/ people he was looking for an alternative sea route
to China and the far east - that's how he got the money for the
expedition. It's extremely difficult to be sure of anything like this,
but a lot of knowledge passed around within expert groups like
navigators. It is reasonable to expect that Columbus would have been
aware of the Viking settlements in "Vinland" (and certainly aware of the
existence of Iceland), and also to have had a fairly accurate idea of
the size of the earth (rough estimates had been around since Greek
times, though they were not part of "mainstream" knowledge at the time,
mostly due to church influence). It is, as I say, speculation to
suppose Columbus had hopes of finding land where America exists - at
best he only knew of land at that longitude but further north. But I've
read convincing and well-reasoned historical theories giving exactly
that speculation.
Rod Speed
>> Wrong on that last.
Irrelevant to that stupid claim of yours.
> The term "aristocracy" here does not correspond directly to
> its use in other cultures - it does not imply a title, for example
> (though titled nobles were from this layer of society). I can't
> think of an exact equivalent term - perhaps "upper class" would be
> better. Farming was often organised around large farmsteads - the
> owning family would be part of this upper social layer, although a
> similar farm owner in Britain would not be considered an aristocrat.
Irrelevant to that stupid claim of yours.
> And when Vikings settled in other countries, they obviously took lots of non-Vikings with them.
Mindlessly silly use of that word. The viking werent just the aristocracy.
>>> who went off in search of adventure, glory and profit (including
>>> raiding, conquering, exploring, trading, and settling new lands).
>>> As you say, most of Scandinavia's inhabitants - like most people in any country at the time - were mostly peaceful,
>>> and had enough
>>> trouble scraping a living from the land and sea without having to
>>> waste money, energy and lives in war.
>> There's a reason that the viking raids happened, and didnt with other similar groups.
> There's a few reasons. One is that the land was relatively poor in Scandinavia,
Like hell it was.
> meaning that they had more to gain by foreign trade and foreign raids.
The vikings werent primarily about trade.
> The other is that they were excellent shipbuilders and sailors. You don't hear much about Germanic peoples of the
> time who
> raided or traded with their neighbours on foot or horseback - you hear about the Vikings partly because it was over
> longer distances and with a wider range of targets.
Have fun explaining the Normans.
> It is also because of the sea travel that the exchanges were so one-sided - no one (except other Vikings) came to
> Scandinavia.
Utterly mangled all over again.
>>> While they obviously did not have the same level of cultural
>>> influence as the Romans, the Vikings were still very significant in
>>> the history of many parts of north west Europe. Their kings ruled
>>> parts of Britain for a while,
>> And essentially did forever with the Norman invasion.
> In a sense, yes
In reality too.
> - although the Normans were Viking descendants rather than Vikings,
True in spades of those you waffled on about above.
> and were aligned with France.
Like hell they were.
>>> and their cultural and genetic heritage is seen in many places,
>>> especially in Scotland. And of course the Normans (descended from
>>> Danish Vikings) were the last invaders to conquer England.
>> And those Normans certainly were not just the aristocracy of Danemark.
> Correct.
So your original is just plain wrong.
>>> Their explorations also contributed to general European geographical knowledge - I think it is likely (though this
>>> is speculation) that Columbus had strong hopes of finding land roughly were he did find it, because he knew of
>>> Viking expeditions to Newfoundland.
>> That is just plain wrong. He hoped to find asia and was stupid enough to believe the wrong version of the size of the
>> earth.
> He certainly /told/ people he was looking for an alternative sea route to China and the far east
And he certainly /told/ them about his silly idea about the size of the earth too.
> - that's how he got the money for the expedition.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fellas ?
> It's extremely difficult to be sure of anything like this,
But you spew your mindlessly silly claims anyway.
> but a lot of knowledge passed around within expert groups like navigators. It is reasonable to expect that Columbus
> would have been aware of the Viking settlements in "Vinland"
Like hell it is when he didnt even mention that and
no one else knew anything about that at that time.
> (and certainly aware of the existence of Iceland), and also to have had a fairly accurate idea of the size of the
> earth
Like hell he did. He was out by about a third.
> (rough estimates had been around since Greek times,
And accurate estimates had been around since that time too.
> though they were not part of "mainstream" knowledge at the time, mostly due to church influence).
Wrong, as always.
> It is, as I say, speculation to suppose Columbus had hopes of finding land where America exists
And not a shred of evidence to support it either.
In spades with the lattitudes he chose to move at.
> - at best he only knew of land at that longitude but further north.
You dont know that either.
> But I've read convincing and well-reasoned historical theories giving exactly that speculation.
Pity it flys in the face of the evidence.
David Brown
<snip>
I seem to have triggered rodbot mode on that post...
Rod Speed
Corse that is all your own work too, eh ?
John Turco
>
> John Turco wrote:
<heavily edited for brevity>
> While they obviously did not have the same level of cultural influence
> as the Romans, the Vikings were still very significant in the history of
> many parts of north west Europe. Their kings ruled parts of Britain for
> a while, and their cultural and genetic heritage is seen in many places,
> especially in Scotland. And of course the Normans (descended from
> Danish Vikings) were the last invaders to conquer England.
Hello, David:
The Vikings' "cultural and genetic heritage" is comparatively sparse, in
my view. The Normans became thoroughly "Frenchified" and the peoples of
Britain and Ireland are still of Celtic stock, overwhelmingly.
Regarding language, English has an Anglo-Saxon base, which was largely
modified by the French-speaking Norman subjugators.
> Their explorations also contributed to general European geographical
> knowledge - I think it is likely (though this is speculation) that
> Columbus had strong hopes of finding land roughly were he did find it,
> because he knew of Viking expeditions to Newfoundland.
Unlikely. Contrary to popular belief, Christopher Columbus never even
set foot on the North American continent!
> Viking culture (especially in their homeland, but also exported to other
> countries) had some significant "modern" traits that may have influenced
> later societies, especially in Scandinavia. They had a much more
> democratic judicial system than many of their contemporaries, with feuds
> or disagreements being resolved in courts with a judge, lawyers, and
> peers.
Are you sure that "kangaroo courts" didn't predominate, though? (Rod
Speed might appreciate my subtle reference to the famous Australian
marsupial, perhaps. <g>)
> Women had far more influence and power - when a woman's husband was
> away on a Viking expedition, she had full legal authority over their
> estate which was owned jointly. And if she caught him cheating on
> her with another woman (foreign women and slaves don't count, of
> course) she could demand his arrest and execution.
"Demands" are easily made, but, how often are they fulfulled? Besides,
this simply fits the prevailing stereotype of vengeful, bloodthirsty
Vikings.
> Perhaps this explains why modern Scandinavian societies are less
> misogynist than other European countries.
Really? Not according to a Wikipedia article on Sweden, I'd seen, a few
months ago. It claimed that, during the late 19th century and early 20th
century, Swedish emigrants to the United States found American society
to be much more democratic (and far less authoritarian) than their "old
country" ever was.
> I snipped the next bit of your post, before someone invokes Godwin's
> law...
Yes...I should've written, "Herr Schicklgruber and his cronies," rather
than using the dreaded "H word." :-J
John Turco
Hello, David:
Those cynics among us, could logically assume that his greedy cohorts
grabbed the entire "pot" for themselves. <g>
John Turco
>
> John Turco wrote
<edited for brevity>
> >>> Of course, "bloody" always had a more literal meaning, where the
> >>> violent Vikes were concerned! <g>
>
> >> And then there's the raping and pillaging in spades.
>
> >> Their funeral events were a tad over the top too.
>
> > Well, then, I guess that blonds >did< have more fun, after all! :-P
>
> Depends on whether your idea of fun involves going up in flames on
> hubby's funeral pyre, alive.
Hello, Rod:
I said "blonds," not "blondes" -- viva la difference! <G>
John Turco
>
> David Brown wrote
>
> >>>>> raids or other violence.
<heavily edited for brevity>
> >>> Their explorations also contributed to general European geographical knowledge - I think it is likely (though this
> >>> is speculation) that Columbus had strong hopes of finding land roughly were he did find it, because he knew of
> >>> Viking expeditions to Newfoundland.
>
> >> That is just plain wrong. He hoped to find asia and was stupid enough to believe the wrong version of the size of the
> >> earth.
<heavily edited>
Hello, Rod:
Hey, if ol' Chris was truly such a disoriented dimwit, "USA" may have stood for "United States of Australia!" :-P
John Turco
>
> Rod Speed wrote:
<heavily edited for brevity>
> > There's a reason that the viking raids happened, and didnt with other
> > similar groups.
> >
>
> There's a few reasons. One is that the land was relatively poor in
> Scandinavia, meaning that they had more to gain by foreign trade and
> foreign raids. The other is that they were excellent shipbuilders and
> sailors. You don't hear much about Germanic peoples of the time who
> raided or traded with their neighbours on foot or horseback - you hear
> about the Vikings partly because it was over longer distances and with a
> wider range of targets. It is also because of the sea travel that the
> exchanges were so one-sided - no one (except other Vikings) came to
> Scandinavia.
<heavily edited>
Hello, David:
You're quite correct, about the Vikings' refined shipbuilding skills and
seamanship. No matter how feisty their contemporaries were (e.g., Celts),
those other groups were also more insular, due to their somewhat limited
mobility.
Also, despite their great cultures, the sailing vessels of the ancient
Greeks and Romans weren't very advanced.
David Brown
> David Brown wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>
> <heavily edited for brevity>
>
>>> There's a reason that the viking raids happened, and didnt with other
>>> similar groups.
>>>
>> There's a few reasons. One is that the land was relatively poor in
>> Scandinavia, meaning that they had more to gain by foreign trade and
>> foreign raids. The other is that they were excellent shipbuilders and
>> sailors. You don't hear much about Germanic peoples of the time who
>> raided or traded with their neighbours on foot or horseback - you hear
>> about the Vikings partly because it was over longer distances and with a
>> wider range of targets. It is also because of the sea travel that the
>> exchanges were so one-sided - no one (except other Vikings) came to
>> Scandinavia.
>
> <heavily edited>
>
> Hello, David:
>
> You're quite correct, about the Vikings' refined shipbuilding skills and
> seamanship. No matter how feisty their contemporaries were (e.g., Celts),
> those other groups were also more insular, due to their somewhat limited
> mobility.
>
The Celts are another sometimes misunderstood people (or peoples - the
term Celts covers a wide range of tribes) - again, much of what was
written about them was written by the Romans, who were not always in
total agreement with their Celtic neighbours and subjects (see Asterix
and Obelix for details).
> Also, despite their great cultures, the sailing vessels of the ancient
> Greeks and Romans weren't very advanced.
>
Their ships /were/ pretty advanced (big, fast, reliable), but they were
designed for use in coastal waters and around the Mediterranean, and
were not suitable for the North Sea. The same applies to the navigation
skills and instruments, which are equally important to sea voyages.
David Brown
> David Brown wrote:
>> John Turco wrote:
>
> <heavily edited for brevity>
>
>> While they obviously did not have the same level of cultural influence
>> as the Romans, the Vikings were still very significant in the history of
>> many parts of north west Europe. Their kings ruled parts of Britain for
>> a while, and their cultural and genetic heritage is seen in many places,
>> especially in Scotland. And of course the Normans (descended from
>> Danish Vikings) were the last invaders to conquer England.
>
> Hello, David:
>
> The Vikings' "cultural and genetic heritage" is comparatively sparse, in
> my view. The Normans became thoroughly "Frenchified" and the peoples of
> Britain and Ireland are still of Celtic stock, overwhelmingly.
>
That's true enough, and certainly most of our genes are Celtic. But
studies have shown genetic descent from Vikings in many places in the
UK. I don't mean to imply that Viking blood dominates at all in the UK,
merely that surprisingly many of us have a little Viking in our ancestry.
> Regarding language, English has an Anglo-Saxon base, which was largely
> modified by the French-speaking Norman subjugators.
>
The same thing applies in language - Viking language is an influence,
but not the main root. It is most obvious when you look at more local
languages and dialects - many of the Scots languages have much more
Nordic influence than "the Queen's English", and it can be seen today in
dialects and pronunciation. When I learned Norwegian, it was clear that
there are a very large number of words in English that have Nordic
roots. It was also clear that as a Scot, I had advantages in learning
Norwegian over Englishmen or Americans, as our pronunciation of letters
is closer.
>> Their explorations also contributed to general European geographical
>> knowledge - I think it is likely (though this is speculation) that
>> Columbus had strong hopes of finding land roughly were he did find it,
>> because he knew of Viking expeditions to Newfoundland.
>
> Unlikely. Contrary to popular belief, Christopher Columbus never even
> set foot on the North American continent!
>
As I say, it's a speculative theory - and as such it's purely a matter
of personal opinion whether one feels it is believable and likely, or not.
>> Viking culture (especially in their homeland, but also exported to other
>> countries) had some significant "modern" traits that may have influenced
>> later societies, especially in Scandinavia. They had a much more
>> democratic judicial system than many of their contemporaries, with feuds
>> or disagreements being resolved in courts with a judge, lawyers, and
>> peers.
>
> Are you sure that "kangaroo courts" didn't predominate, though? (Rod
> Speed might appreciate my subtle reference to the famous Australian
> marsupial, perhaps. <g>)
>
I'm sure they had as much corruption and abuse as any other culture,
before or since. Certainly the Viking equivalent of an appeal was
swordplay (though this would be after the "ting", or assembly).
>> Women had far more influence and power - when a woman's husband was
>> away on a Viking expedition, she had full legal authority over their
>> estate which was owned jointly. And if she caught him cheating on
>> her with another woman (foreign women and slaves don't count, of
>> course) she could demand his arrest and execution.
>
> "Demands" are easily made, but, how often are they fulfulled? Besides,
> this simply fits the prevailing stereotype of vengeful, bloodthirsty
> Vikings.
>
Written history from the time is sparse, though there is much more from
Sweden at slightly later dates (say, 1200 onwards). Judging from my
spare knowledge of the sparse records, such demands would seldom be
made, such as if the man in question was of considerable renown, but
they would be carried out if the evidence was against him.
>> Perhaps this explains why modern Scandinavian societies are less
>> misogynist than other European countries.
>
> Really? Not according to a Wikipedia article on Sweden, I'd seen, a few
> months ago. It claimed that, during the late 19th century and early 20th
> century, Swedish emigrants to the United States found American society
> to be much more democratic (and far less authoritarian) than their "old
> country" ever was.
>
Was it Swedish women or Swedish men who claimed that?
There is certainly no doubt about modern Scandinavia being less
male-biased that most other countries. Some of that is perhaps a
general effect of greater socialism (such as better maternity leave),
and I have no idea if or how that might have had historical Viking
influence.
But other than that, I simply throwing out an idea - I have no evidence
beyond the facts that women (free women, anyway) had better rights in
Viking societies than in most contemporary societies, and modern
Scandinavian women have better rights than in most contemporary
societies. Whether these two situations are related or not is just an idea.
Rod Speed
> John Turco wrote
>> David Brown wrote
>>> John Turco wrote
>>> While they obviously did not have the same level of cultural
>>> influence as the Romans, the Vikings were still very significant in
>>> the history of many parts of north west Europe. Their kings ruled
>>> parts of Britain for a while, and their cultural and genetic
>>> heritage is seen in many places, especially in Scotland. And of
>>> course the Normans (descended from Danish Vikings) were the last
>>> invaders to conquer England.
>> The Vikings' "cultural and genetic heritage" is comparatively
>> sparse, in my view. The Normans became thoroughly "Frenchified" and
>> the peoples of Britain and Ireland are still of Celtic stock, overwhelmingly.
> That's true enough, and certainly most of our genes are Celtic. But
> studies have shown genetic descent from Vikings in many places in the UK. I don't mean to imply that Viking blood
> dominates at all in the
> UK, merely that surprisingly many of us have a little Viking in our ancestry.
>> Regarding language, English has an Anglo-Saxon base, which was
>> largely modified by the French-speaking Norman subjugators.
> The same thing applies in language - Viking language is an influence,
> but not the main root. It is most obvious when you look at more local
> languages and dialects - many of the Scots languages have much more
> Nordic influence than "the Queen's English", and it can be seen today
> in dialects and pronunciation. When I learned Norwegian, it was clear that there are a very large number of words in
> English that have Nordic roots. It was also clear that as a Scot, I had advantages in learning
> Norwegian over Englishmen or Americans, as our pronunciation of
> letters is closer.
Thats a trivial part of learning a language.
>>> Their explorations also contributed to general European geographical
>>> knowledge - I think it is likely (though this is speculation) that
>>> Columbus had strong hopes of finding land roughly were he did find
>>> it, because he knew of Viking expeditions to Newfoundland.
>> Unlikely. Contrary to popular belief, Christopher Columbus never even set foot on the North American continent!
> As I say, it's a speculative theory - and as such it's purely a matter
> of personal opinion whether one feels it is believable and likely, or not.
Nope, its actually about what the evidence supports and what it does not.
>>> Viking culture (especially in their homeland, but also exported to
>>> other countries) had some significant "modern" traits that may have
>>> influenced later societies, especially in Scandinavia. They had a
>>> much more democratic judicial system than many of their
>>> contemporaries, with feuds or disagreements being resolved in
>>> courts with a judge, lawyers, and peers.
>> Are you sure that "kangaroo courts" didn't predominate, though? (Rod
>> Speed might appreciate my subtle reference to the famous Australian
>> marsupial, perhaps. <g>)
> I'm sure they had as much corruption and abuse as any other culture,
> before or since. Certainly the Viking equivalent of an appeal was
> swordplay (though this would be after the "ting", or assembly).
And that entire era was much more about blood feuds than formal judicial systems.
>>> Women had far more influence and power - when a woman's husband was away on a Viking expedition, she had full legal
>>> authority over their
>>> estate which was owned jointly. And if she caught him cheating on
>>> her with another woman (foreign women and slaves don't count, of
>>> course) she could demand his arrest and execution.
>> "Demands" are easily made, but, how often are they fulfulled?
>> Besides, this simply fits the prevailing stereotype of vengeful,
>> bloodthirsty Vikings.
> Written history from the time is sparse, though there is much more from Sweden at slightly later dates (say, 1200
> onwards). Judging from my spare knowledge of the sparse records, such demands would seldom be made, such as if the
> man in question was of considerable renown, but they would be carried out if the evidence was against him.
>>> Perhaps this explains why modern Scandinavian societies are less misogynist than other European countries.
>> Really? Not according to a Wikipedia article on Sweden, I'd seen, a few months ago. It claimed that, during the late
>> 19th century and
>> early 20th century, Swedish emigrants to the United States found
>> American society to be much more democratic (and far less
>> authoritarian) than their "old country" ever was.
> Was it Swedish women or Swedish men who claimed that?
> There is certainly no doubt about modern Scandinavia being less male-biased that most other countries.
Thats very arguable.
> Some of that is perhaps a general effect of greater socialism (such as better maternity leave),
Thats got nothing to do with socialism.
> and I have no idea if or how that might have had historical Viking influence.
It doesnt. They didnt even invent socialism.
> But other than that, I simply throwing out an idea - I have no evidence beyond the facts that women (free women,
> anyway) had better
> rights in Viking societies than in most contemporary societies,
Thats very arguable too.
> and modern Scandinavian women have better rights than in most contemporary societies.
Oh bullshit.
> Whether these two situations are related or not is just an idea.
The second isnt even true.
John Turco
>
> John Turco wrote:
<edited for brevity>
> > You're quite correct, about the Vikings' refined shipbuilding skills and
> > seamanship. No matter how feisty their contemporaries were (e.g., Celts),
> > those other groups were also more insular, due to their somewhat limited
> > mobility.
> >
>
> The Celts are another sometimes misunderstood people (or peoples - the
> term Celts covers a wide range of tribes) - again, much of what was
> written about them was written by the Romans, who were not always in
> total agreement with their Celtic neighbours and subjects (see Asterix
> and Obelix for details).
Hello, David:
Well, such tribal "disagreements" were the norm, back then. Irrespective
of what the Romans wrote about them, the Celts had long been infamous* for
their combativeness, and were hardly intimidated by the vaunted Vikings.
[* Present company excepted, of course. <g>]
> > Also, despite their great cultures, the sailing vessels of the ancient
> > Greeks and Romans weren't very advanced.
> >
>
> Their ships /were/ pretty advanced (big, fast, reliable), but they were
> designed for use in coastal waters and around the Mediterranean, and
> were not suitable for the North Sea. The same applies to the navigation
> skills and instruments, which are equally important to sea voyages.
Yes, indeed; that's what I'd meant, before.
John Turco
>
> John Turco wrote:
<edited for brevity>
> > The Vikings' "cultural and genetic heritage" is comparatively sparse, in
> > my view. The Normans became thoroughly "Frenchified" and the peoples of
> > Britain and Ireland are still of Celtic stock, overwhelmingly.
> >
>
> That's true enough, and certainly most of our genes are Celtic. But
> studies have shown genetic descent from Vikings in many places in the
> UK. I don't mean to imply that Viking blood dominates at all in the UK,
> merely that surprisingly many of us have a little Viking in our ancestry.
Hello, David:
The Norman French even settled certain parts of the Mediterranean region.
They were in Sicily and southern Italy, and made raids against Spain.
Therefore, who knows? Some of my Sicilian forebears could've been distantly
related (no pun intended) to a few of your hypothetical Viking ancestors,
back in merry old Scotland. ;-)
> > Regarding language, English has an Anglo-Saxon base, which was largely
> > modified by the French-speaking Norman subjugators.
> >
>
> The same thing applies in language - Viking language is an influence,
> but not the main root. It is most obvious when you look at more local
> languages and dialects - many of the Scots languages have much more
> Nordic influence than "the Queen's English", and it can be seen today in
> dialects and pronunciation. When I learned Norwegian, it was clear that
> there are a very large number of words in English that have Nordic
> roots. It was also clear that as a Scot, I had advantages in learning
> Norwegian over Englishmen or Americans, as our pronunciation of letters
> is closer.
English and German are each part of the same western subset, of the Germanic
branch of the Indo-European language family; Norwegian, Swedish and Danish
all belong to the northern group. I find this ironic, as at a glance, German
looks so much more similar to those Scandinavian tongues*, than it does to
English.
Than, again, the Angles and the Saxons came from Germany, and the Norman
Conquest caused a distinct divergence between English and German.
[* Finland is "Scandinavian" solely in a geographical sense, as that nation
is otherwise non-Nordic.]
<edited>
> >> Women had far more influence and power - when a woman's husband was
> >> away on a Viking expedition, she had full legal authority over their
> >> estate which was owned jointly. And if she caught him cheating on
> >> her with another woman (foreign women and slaves don't count, of
> >> course) she could demand his arrest and execution.
> >
> > "Demands" are easily made, but, how often are they fulfulled? Besides,
> > this simply fits the prevailing stereotype of vengeful, bloodthirsty
> > Vikings.
> >
>
> Written history from the time is sparse, though there is much more from
> Sweden at slightly later dates (say, 1200 onwards). Judging from my
> spare knowledge of the sparse records, such demands would seldom be
> made, such as if the man in question was of considerable renown, but
> they would be carried out if the evidence was against him.
Nevertheless, how would this type of brutal custom, possibly help to
portray the Vikings in a more favorable light?
> >> Perhaps this explains why modern Scandinavian societies are less
> >> misogynist than other European countries.
> >
> > Really? Not according to a Wikipedia article on Sweden, I'd seen, a few
> > months ago. It claimed that, during the late 19th century and early 20th
> > century, Swedish emigrants to the United States found American society
> > to be much more democratic (and far less authoritarian) than their "old
> > country" ever was.
> >
>
> Was it Swedish women or Swedish men who claimed that?
I don't remember, and why does it matter, anyhow? Or, are you implying
that only women's "claims" can have any validity?
> There is certainly no doubt about modern Scandinavia being less
> male-biased that most other countries. Some of that is perhaps a
> general effect of greater socialism (such as better maternity leave),
> and I have no idea if or how that might have had historical Viking
> influence.
>
> But other than that, I simply throwing out an idea - I have no evidence
> beyond the facts that women (free women, anyway) had better rights in
> Viking societies than in most contemporary societies, and modern
> Scandinavian women have better rights than in most contemporary
> societies. Whether these two situations are related or not is just an
> idea.
<edited>
Modern Sweden's astronomical rates of juvenle delinquency, out-of-wedlock
births and suicides, may tend to offset the supposed "benefits" of the
country's overly permissive society.
Oh, well...has any thread in Usenet history, been as totally unrelated to
a newsgroup's subject matter, as >this< one? I guess I'm to blame, being
the poster who first mentioned the Vlkings.
Conversely, news:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage has become so quiet,
in recent years, that >any< kind of discussion may be welcomed!
Rod Speed
Specially now that the pseudokraut appears have either slashed his wrists
or had his net access in the loony bin removed by the global financial crisis.
Arno is clearly still getting his drugs tho.
David Brown
> David Brown wrote:
>> John Turco wrote:
>
> <edited for brevity>
>
>>> You're quite correct, about the Vikings' refined shipbuilding skills and
>>> seamanship. No matter how feisty their contemporaries were (e.g., Celts),
>>> those other groups were also more insular, due to their somewhat limited
>>> mobility.
>>>
>> The Celts are another sometimes misunderstood people (or peoples - the
>> term Celts covers a wide range of tribes) - again, much of what was
>> written about them was written by the Romans, who were not always in
>> total agreement with their Celtic neighbours and subjects (see Asterix
>> and Obelix for details).
>
> Hello, David:
>
> Well, such tribal "disagreements" were the norm, back then. Irrespective
> of what the Romans wrote about them, the Celts had long been infamous* for
> their combativeness, and were hardly intimidated by the vaunted Vikings.
>
> [* Present company excepted, of course. <g>]
>
This can also be seen in the history of Scotland and England - Scottish
clans, the descendants of Celtic tribes, fought each other so much that
they had great trouble mounting a coherent defence against the English
armies. Norwegian history has a very similar story.
Although the Celts fought with each other, they were not often involved
in conquest of non-Celtic neighbours. They spread mainly by trade and
cultural exchange, until the neighbouring tribes gradually became Celtic
in cultural and language.
When they went to war, however, the Celts were fearsome - they were the
only people the Roman soldiers were truly afraid of even at the height
of the empire's strength. Of course, it helped that some Celtic tribes
apparently averaged nearly a foot higher than the Romans, especially
with their long hair held vertically aloft with lime and mud.
One Celtic tradition that some tribes had, that I think should be
brought back in modern times, is royal sacrifice. The "king", or tribe
chief, was elected by the elders to serve for seven years. At the end
of that time (or a shorter time, if they did a poor job), they were
sacrificed to the gods. That way the leader was always someone who was
totally dedicated to the good of the people - no one took the job for
personal gain.
David Brown
> David Brown wrote:
>> John Turco wrote:
>
> <edited for brevity>
>
>
> branch of the Indo-European language family; Norwegian, Swedish and Danish
> all belong to the northern group. I find this ironic, as at a glance, German
> looks so much more similar to those Scandinavian tongues*, than it does to
> English.
>
It is difficult for an amateur to give a decent impression - even though
I am fairly fluent in Norwegian and have some memories of German from
school. It is hard to avoid being subjective. German grammar is, I
would say, closer to English grammar (especially older English - try
reading Milton for example) than to Norwegian grammar. In vocabulary,
my vague guess is that English and Norwegian are closer to each other
than either is to German.
> Than, again, the Angles and the Saxons came from Germany, and the Norman
> Conquest caused a distinct divergence between English and German.
>
Yes, we are all mixed up - the British people and English language
especially.
> [* Finland is "Scandinavian" solely in a geographical sense, as that nation
> is otherwise non-Nordic.]
>
Parts of Finland are heavily Swedish in language, people, and history,
and modern Finnish culture is closer to the rest of Scandinavia than to
their other neighbours. But genetically and historically the Fins are
much closer to the Baltic counties than to the rest of Scandinavia, and
the Finnish language is an oddity (it's closely related to Sami from the
north of Scandinavia, and loosely related to Hungarian).
> <edited>
>
>>>> Women had far more influence and power - when a woman's husband was
>>>> away on a Viking expedition, she had full legal authority over their
>>>> estate which was owned jointly. And if she caught him cheating on
>>>> her with another woman (foreign women and slaves don't count, of
>>>> course) she could demand his arrest and execution.
>>> "Demands" are easily made, but, how often are they fulfulled? Besides,
>>> this simply fits the prevailing stereotype of vengeful, bloodthirsty
>>> Vikings.
>>>
>> Written history from the time is sparse, though there is much more from
>> Sweden at slightly later dates (say, 1200 onwards). Judging from my
>> spare knowledge of the sparse records, such demands would seldom be
>> made, such as if the man in question was of considerable renown, but
>> they would be carried out if the evidence was against him.
>
> Nevertheless, how would this type of brutal custom, possibly help to
> portray the Vikings in a more favorable light?
>
I guess the topic has strayed a little... the point was merely that
while in most contemporary societies women were effectively property
owned by their father, husband or brothers, in Viking society they had
far more rights.
>>>> Perhaps this explains why modern Scandinavian societies are less
>>>> misogynist than other European countries.
>>> Really? Not according to a Wikipedia article on Sweden, I'd seen, a few
>>> months ago. It claimed that, during the late 19th century and early 20th
>>> century, Swedish emigrants to the United States found American society
>>> to be much more democratic (and far less authoritarian) than their "old
>>> country" ever was.
>>>
>> Was it Swedish women or Swedish men who claimed that?
>
> I don't remember, and why does it matter, anyhow? Or, are you implying
> that only women's "claims" can have any validity?
>
In 19th century Sweden, the average man was a farmer with very little
influence on the running of the country. On moving to the USA, he would
have far more to say - democracy in the USA, especially at a local (and
therefore more immediately visible) level, was much more developed. The
point is, if a Swedish male emigrant said the USA was more democratic
than Sweden at the time, the comment without other context says
absolutely nothing about the male domination or women's rights in either
country. If the Swede was a women, the assumption (again without
context) would be that it was in reference to her own democratic rights.
>> There is certainly no doubt about modern Scandinavia being less
>> male-biased that most other countries. Some of that is perhaps a
>> general effect of greater socialism (such as better maternity leave),
>> and I have no idea if or how that might have had historical Viking
>> influence.
>>
>> But other than that, I simply throwing out an idea - I have no evidence
>> beyond the facts that women (free women, anyway) had better rights in
>> Viking societies than in most contemporary societies, and modern
>> Scandinavian women have better rights than in most contemporary
>> societies. Whether these two situations are related or not is just an
>> idea.
>
> <edited>
>
> Modern Sweden's astronomical rates of juvenle delinquency, out-of-wedlock
> births and suicides, may tend to offset the supposed "benefits" of the
> country's overly permissive society.
>
There are pros and cons of every system - but here you are mixing up
significantly different social problems (some would argue about whether
out-of-wedlock births /is/ a problem) with significantly different
causes and effects.
Take suicide for example. The general rule is that as standards of
living go up, so do so suicide rates. The theory goes that people
commit suicide over things like relationship or financial problems -
people who have to struggle with getting enough food or shelter for
their families do not commit suicide.
> Oh, well...has any thread in Usenet history, been as totally unrelated to
> a newsgroup's subject matter, as >this< one? I guess I'm to blame, being
> the poster who first mentioned the Vlkings.
>
I think it is a good thing to have these sorts of threads on occasion -
groups like this are very international, and it's nice to have some
cross-cultural discussions.
> Conversely, news:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage has become so quiet,
> in recent years, that >any< kind of discussion may be welcomed!
>
Perhaps we should discuss the pros and cons of exFAT? That would
combine an on-topic subject with opinion, politics, philosophy,
economics and religion...
Rod Speed
> John Turco wrote
>> David Brown wrote
>>> John Turco wrote
>>>> You're quite correct, about the Vikings' refined shipbuilding
>>>> skills and seamanship. No matter how feisty their contemporaries
>>>> were (e.g., Celts), those other groups were also more insular, due
>>>> to their somewhat limited mobility.
>>> The Celts are another sometimes misunderstood people (or peoples -
>>> the term Celts covers a wide range of tribes) - again, much of what
>>> was written about them was written by the Romans, who were not
>>> always in total agreement with their Celtic neighbours and subjects
>>> (see Asterix and Obelix for details).
>> Well, such tribal "disagreements" were the norm, back then.
>> Irrespective of what the Romans wrote about them, the Celts had long been infamous* for their combativeness, and were
>> hardly intimidated by the vaunted Vikings.
>> [* Present company excepted, of course. <g>]
> This can also be seen in the history of Scotland and England -
> Scottish clans, the descendants of Celtic tribes, fought each other
> so much that they had great trouble mounting a coherent defence
> against the English armies. Norwegian history has a very similar story.
> Although the Celts fought with each other, they were not often involved in conquest of non-Celtic neighbours.
Mindlessly silly, most obviously with the english
where they certainly attempted that, and failed.
> They spread mainly by trade and cultural exchange,
Even sillier, most obviously with Ireland.
> until the neighbouring tribes gradually
> became Celtic in cultural and language.
Even sillier.
> When they went to war, however, the Celts were fearsome - they were the only people the Roman soldiers were truly
> afraid of even at the height of the empire's strength.
Even sillier. Look up the Teutenberg Forest sometime.
> Of course, it helped that some Celtic tribes apparently averaged nearly a foot higher than the Romans, especially with
> their long hair held vertically aloft with lime and mud.
Even sillier. That aint the reason the romans gave up on them.
> One Celtic tradition that some tribes had, that I think should be
> brought back in modern times, is royal sacrifice. The "king", or
> tribe chief, was elected by the elders to serve for seven years. At the end of that time (or a shorter time, if they
> did a poor job),
> they were sacrificed to the gods. That way the leader was always someone who was totally dedicated to the good of the
> people - no one took the job for personal gain.
Even sillier.
Rod Speed
Pigs arse they were. You're ignoring Boudica and that english queen in spades.
> in Viking society they had far more rights.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>>>> Perhaps this explains why modern Scandinavian societies are less misogynist than other European countries.
>>>> Really? Not according to a Wikipedia article on Sweden, I'd seen,
>>>> a few months ago. It claimed that, during the late 19th century
>>>> and early 20th century, Swedish emigrants to the United States
>>>> found American society to be much more democratic (and far less authoritarian) than their "old country" ever was.
>>> Was it Swedish women or Swedish men who claimed that?
>> I don't remember, and why does it matter, anyhow? Or, are you implying that only women's "claims" can have any
>> validity?
> In 19th century Sweden, the average man was a farmer with very little influence on the running of the country.
True everywhere, stupid.
> On moving to the USA, he would have far more to say - democracy in the USA, especially at a local (and therefore more
> immediately visible) level, was much more developed.
> The point is, if a Swedish male emigrant said the USA was
> more democratic than Sweden at the time, the comment without other context says absolutely nothing about the male
> domination or women's rights in either country. If the Swede was a women, the assumption (again without context)
> would be that it was in reference to her own democratic rights.
Mindlessly silly.
>>> There is certainly no doubt about modern Scandinavia being less
>>> male-biased that most other countries. Some of that is perhaps a
>>> general effect of greater socialism (such as better maternity
>>> leave), and I have no idea if or how that might have had historical
>>> Viking influence.
>>>
>>> But other than that, I simply throwing out an idea - I have no
>>> evidence beyond the facts that women (free women, anyway) had
>>> better rights in Viking societies than in most contemporary
>>> societies, and modern Scandinavian women have better rights than in
>>> most contemporary societies. Whether these two situations are
>>> related or not is just an idea.
>> Modern Sweden's astronomical rates of juvenle delinquency,
>> out-of-wedlock births and suicides, may tend to offset the supposed "benefits" of the country's overly permissive
>> society.
> There are pros and cons of every system - but here you are mixing up significantly different social problems (some
> would argue about whether out-of-wedlock births /is/ a problem) with significantly different causes and effects.
> Take suicide for example. The general rule is that as standards of living go up, so do so suicide rates.
Even sillier. In spades with the immensly higher suicide rates in much of scandinavia.
> The theory goes that people commit suicide over things like relationship or financial problems -
Even sillier.
> people who have to struggle with getting enough food or shelter for their families do not commit suicide.
How odd that so many suicided in america in the 19th century.
>> Oh, well...has any thread in Usenet history, been as totally unrelated to a newsgroup's subject matter, as >this<
>> one? I guess I'm to blame,
>> being the poster who first mentioned the Vlkings.
> I think it is a good thing to have these sorts of threads on occasion
> - groups like this are very international, and it's nice to have some
> cross-cultural discussions.
>> Conversely, news:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage has become so
>> quiet, in recent years, that >any< kind of discussion may be welcomed!
> Perhaps we should discuss the pros and cons of exFAT? That would combine an on-topic subject with opinion, politics,
> philosophy, economics and religion...
You'll end up blind if you dont watch out.
John Turco
<heavily edited for brevity>
> Although the Celts fought with each other, they were not often involved
> in conquest of non-Celtic neighbours. They spread mainly by trade and
> cultural exchange, until the neighbouring tribes gradually became Celtic
> in cultural and language.
>
> When they went to war, however, the Celts were fearsome - they were the
> only people the Roman soldiers were truly afraid of even at the height
> of the empire's strength. Of course, it helped that some Celtic tribes
> apparently averaged nearly a foot higher than the Romans, especially
> with their long hair held vertically aloft with lime and mud.
<edited>
Hello, David:
Hmmm...I was under the impression that the Celts were typically shorter
(and rather duskier of hair, complexion and eye color), in comparison to
their Germanic counterparts? Albeit, you did write "some Celtic tribes,"
so, their may have been exceptions to the rule.
One current, celebrated "semi-exception" is the actor Sean Connery (a
Scotsman of Irish Catholic descent). He's tall, dark and handsome. (Or,
at least, he >used< to be, before graying and balding. <g>)
John Turco
>
> John Turco wrote:
<heavily edited for brevity>
> > Oh, well...has any thread in Usenet history, been as totally unrelated to
> > a newsgroup's subject matter, as >this< one? I guess I'm to blame, being
> > the poster who first mentioned the Vlkings.
> >
>
> I think it is a good thing to have these sorts of threads on occasion -
> groups like this are very international, and it's nice to have some
> cross-cultural discussions.
Hello, David:
Yeah -- this branch of the debate has gotten quite "international" in
scope, what with you (Scotsman and naturalized Norwegian), Rod Speed
(Australian) and me (American), having a round-robin argument of sorts.
> > Conversely, news:comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage has become so
> > quiet, in recent years, that >any< kind of discussion may be
> > welcomed!
>
> Perhaps we should discuss the pros and cons of exFAT?
exFAT, eh? I'd never even heard of the term, till you mentioned it.
Then, by coincidence, another newsgroup subscriber (Yousuf Khan)
contributed an article on the matter ("Anyone hear about the exFAT
file system, the successor to FAT32?"), Friday, August 28, 2009.
> That would combine an on-topic subject with opinion, politics,
> philosophy, economics and religion...
My other main Usenet interest, these past few years, has been
<news:rec.photo.digital>. There, the above issues are often
involved with these sundry, heated controversies (among others):
Nikon vs Canon
"point & shoot" digicams vs DSLR's
film vs digital
Bayer vs Foveon (image sensors)
AA cells vs (proprietary) Li-Ion battery packs
Adobe Photoshop vs all other graphics programs
Oh, and off-topic battles abound, also (e.g., PC vs Mac, Windows
vs Linux).
John Turco
>
> David Brown wrote
<heavily edited for brevity>
> > Of course, it helped that some Celtic tribes apparently averaged
> > nearly a foot higher than the Romans, especially with their long
> > hair held vertically aloft with lime and mud.
>
> Even sillier. That aint the reason the romans gave up on them.
<edited>
Hello, Rod:
Whatever their individual physical statures might have been, the
Celtic tribes of ancient Scotland proved to be formidable foes,
for both the Romans, themselves, and their mercenary troops.
John Turco
>
> David Brown wrote:
<heavily edited for brevity>
> > the point was merely that while in most contemporary societies women were
> > effectively property owned by their father, husband or brothers,
>
> Pigs arse they were. You're ignoring Boudica and that english queen in spades.
<edited>
Hello, Rod:
Don't forget the Basques, either.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> David Brown wrote
>>> Of course, it helped that some Celtic tribes apparently
>>> averaged nearly a foot higher than the Romans, especially
>>> with their long hair held vertically aloft with lime and mud.
>> Even sillier. That aint the reason the romans gave up on them.
> Whatever their individual physical statures might have been, the
> Celtic tribes of ancient Scotland proved to be formidable foes,
> for both the Romans, themselves, and their mercenary troops.
And the area was of so little interest to the romans that it made a
lot more sense to just wall it off and let those savages kill each other.
David Brown
> David Brown wrote:
>
> <heavily edited for brevity>
>
>> Although the Celts fought with each other, they were not often involved
>> in conquest of non-Celtic neighbours. They spread mainly by trade and
>> cultural exchange, until the neighbouring tribes gradually became Celtic
>> in cultural and language.
>>
>> When they went to war, however, the Celts were fearsome - they were the
>> only people the Roman soldiers were truly afraid of even at the height
>> of the empire's strength. Of course, it helped that some Celtic tribes
>> apparently averaged nearly a foot higher than the Romans, especially
>> with their long hair held vertically aloft with lime and mud.
>
> <edited>
>
> Hello, David:
>
> Hmmm...I was under the impression that the Celts were typically shorter
> (and rather duskier of hair, complexion and eye color), in comparison to
> their Germanic counterparts? Albeit, you did write "some Celtic tribes,"
> so, their may have been exceptions to the rule.
>
Because of the way the Celts spread - by cultural mingling with
neighbours rather than by conquest and rule - Celtic tribes were
physically as varied as the people who had lived on the land before they
met the Celts. So there were short and dark Celts as well as tall ones.
Bilky White
news:4A8CCF02...@concentric.net...
>
> No, that's called "punctuation" -- better too many comas, than too few.
> This
> way, confusion can be more easily avoided.
>
No, it is poor grammar. If people are confused by correct grammar then they
need to learn to read again. QED.
Bilky White
>
> Thanks, for the link. It enabled me to learn that "Bilky White" fits
> the decription of a "chav" to such an incredible degree, that he might
> be the genuine prototype of this grubby beast. ;-)
>
Now that's better. Punctuation and grammar much improved. I'm glad you
took my advice to improve it. However those commas are completely redundant
so you still have a way to go.
Bilky White
>
>
> It's now painfully evident that you're >not< willing to offer anything of
> value, to this newsgroup.
>
Your point being?
Rod Speed
That you are a fuckwit chav, fuckwit chav.
Bilky White
news:7g1j7lF...@mid.individual.net...
> Bilky White wrote:
>> "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> news:4A8CCF12...@concentric.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> It's now painfully evident that you're >not< willing to offer
>>> anything of value, to this newsgroup.
>>>
>>
>> Your point being?
>
> That you are a
>
No it isn't. What logical process did you go through to arrive at that
conclusion? It makes no sense at all. Dance my little muppet puppet,
DANCE.
Rod Speed
Bilky White wrote just what you'd expect
from a desperately cowering fuckwit chav.
Bilky White
>
> Some garbage
>
How did the Ashes go Roddie?
Rod Speed
John Turco
Hello, Rod:
Lengthy fortifications (e.g., "Hadrian's Wall") were built, to prevent
Pictish tribes from invading Roman territory. (The Picts weren't even
Celtic, but they were pretty nasty, themselves!)
Wikipedia - Hadrian's Wall
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian%27s_Wall>
Oh, and the above Web page contains this link:
Wikipedia - John Speed
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Speed>
"John Speed (1552�1629) was a historian, now best remembered as the
cartographer whose maps of English counties are often found framed
in homes throughout the United Kingdom."
One of your illustrious English ancestors, by any chance? :-)
John Turco
Either the British educational system fails to provide "correct grammar"
courses, these days, or...scatterbrained chavs (such as yourself) simply
have woefully short attention spans.
Or >both<, perhaps?
John Turco
No, >you< "have a way to go" -- right out the door!
John Turco
That should be self-explanatory, my good chav.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> John Turco wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> David Brown wrote
>>>>> Of course, it helped that some Celtic tribes apparently
>>>>> averaged nearly a foot higher than the Romans, especially
>>>>> with their long hair held vertically aloft with lime and mud.
>>>> Even sillier. That aint the reason the romans gave up on them.
>>> Whatever their individual physical statures might have been, the
>>> Celtic tribes of ancient Scotland proved to be formidable foes,
>>> for both the Romans, themselves, and their mercenary troops.
>> And the area was of so little interest to the romans that it made a
>> lot more sense to just wall it off and let those savages kill each other.
> Lengthy fortifications (e.g., "Hadrian's Wall") were built, to prevent
> Pictish tribes from invading Roman territory. (The Picts weren't
> even Celtic, but they were pretty nasty, themselves!)
Yeah, I wasnt saying that those savages were celts, should have said that more carefully.
> Wikipedia - Hadrian's Wall
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian%27s_Wall>
> Oh, and the above Web page contains this link:
> Wikipedia - John Speed
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Speed>
> "John Speed (1552-1629) was a historian, now best remembered
> as the cartographer whose maps of English counties are often
> found framed in homes throughout the United Kingdom."
> One of your illustrious English ancestors, by any chance? :-)
Could be. My sister was planning to do some geneology, havent kept up with what she managed to come up with.
That side of the family certainly came from there.
Rod Speed
> Bilky White wrote:
>>
>> "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> news:4A8CCF12...@concentric.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> It's now painfully evident that you're >not< willing to offer
>>> anything of value, to this newsgroup.
>>>
>>
>> Your point being?
>
>
> That should be self-explanatory, my good chav.
He's one of the bad chavs, completely worthless in fact.
Bilky White
> Bilky White wrote:
>>
>> "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> news:4A8CCF02...@concentric.net...
>> >
>> > No, that's called "punctuation" -- better too many comas, than too few.
>> > This way, confusion can be more easily avoided.
>> >
>>
>> No, it is poor grammar. If people are confused by correct grammar then
>> they need to learn to read again. QED.
>
>
> Either the British educational system fails to provide "correct grammar"
> courses, these days, or...scatterbrained chavs (such as yourself) simply
> have woefully short attention spans.
>
> Or >both<, perhaps?
>
Or more probably neither. Either way, we have the Ashes. Did you notice
that one of those sentences begins with a conjunction? That's poor grammar
too but the point is that I know whereas you have to have yours pointed out
to you by someone you call a chav. What does that make you? A sub-chav?
Bilky White
> Bilky White wrote:
>>
>> "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> news:4A8CCF0E...@concentric.net...
>> >
>> > Thanks, for the link. It enabled me to learn that "Bilky White" fits
>> > the decription of a "chav" to such an incredible degree, that he might
>> > be the genuine prototype of this grubby beast. ;-)
>> >
>>
>> Now that's better. Punctuation and grammar much improved. I'm glad you
>> took my advice to improve it. However those commas are completely
>> redundant
>> so you still have a way to go.
>
>
> No, >you< "have a way to go" -- right out the door!
>
Oh dear, what a terrible retort but I'll bite just for funsies. What door?
There's no door in a newsgroup. I think you and Roddie boy have been
tapping away at those keys on your own for too long.
Bilky White
> Bilky White wrote:
>>
>> "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> news:4A8CCF12...@concentric.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > It's now painfully evident that you're >not< willing to offer anything
>> > of
>> > value, to this newsgroup.
>> >
>>
>> Your point being?
>
>
> That should be self-explanatory, my good chav.
>
Ah, as your existence then, completely pointless.
Bilky White
G'day cobbah, thanks for the Ashes. You ready to dance to my tune again?
Rod Speed
> "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:4AA4A391...@concentric.net...
>> Bilky White wrote:
>>>
>>> "John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4A8CCF02...@concentric.net...
>>>>
>>>> No, that's called "punctuation" -- better too many comas, than too
>>>> few. This way, confusion can be more easily avoided.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it is poor grammar. If people are confused by correct grammar
>>> then they need to learn to read again. QED.
>>
>>
>> Either the British educational system fails to provide "correct
>> grammar" courses, these days, or...scatterbrained chavs (such as
>> yourself) simply have woefully short attention spans.
>>
>> Or >both<, perhaps?
>>
>
> Or more probably neither. Either way, we have the Ashes.
Only fools give a flying red fuck about shit like that.
> Did you notice that one of those sentences begins with a conjunction?
> That's poor grammar too but the point is that I know whereas you have to have yours pointed out to you by someone you
> call a chav.
That pathetic excuse for a sentence should be taken out the
back and beaten to death with the largest waddy you can find.
You in spades.
> What does that make you? A sub-chav?
A chav fucker, actually.