Evil at the UN
Robert Arvay
Around the globe, the U.N. uses "humanitarian aid" as a vehicle to
impose politically correct policies, from gender feminism to gun
control. But the crisis in Iraq reveals another aspect of the U.N.: a
money-hungry institution that hides behind a mask of compassion.
The political purposes to which the U.N. uses food and medical
programs has been the subject of much research and comment.
Even the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) is guilty. In 1996, the Vatican
suspended contributions to UNICEF and warned against the agency's
promotion of feminist policies, especially abortion.
More recently, UNICEF's Executive Director Carol Bellamy proposed a
major program for African women and girls that explicitly excluded men
— a clear violation of the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which prohibits sex discrimination. Bellamy's program
addressed not only "the immediate needs of women," but also long-term
ones, such as "access to productive assets" and the elimination of
"destructive social norms."
The humanitarianism is attached to a social agenda. The wielding of
food and medicine as a form of political control has become blatant,
even in UNICEF.
Any legitimate, non-political agency that wants to provide aid to Iraq
should be allowed into the secured areas of the country. But
"non-political" is not a word that describes the U.N. And its main
purpose is not aid. Consider just one of the U.N.'s unfolding
maneuvers. It is an open grab at power and riches.
The U.N. desperately wants back into Iraq in the role of a weapons
monitor. Since Bush has said "no," the U.N. is seeking to enter
through the back door with the oil-for-food program.
[End Excerpt. Remainder can be found at ifeminists.com ]
Corruption at the UN has eviscerated whatever legitimacy it once had.
If the UN is an interim step along the way toward a world government,
then it is no wonder that The Revelation draws a picture of such
government as the bludgeon of the anti-Christ.
To Baha'is, who will welcome the advent of such government, beware.
You will be asked to take the Mark of the Beast, after which there can
be no hope of redemption. You will not be able to resist, unless you
rely upon Jesus the Messiah as your Lord and Savior. He is the way,
the truth, the light and the Life. Pray over this!
errol9
Rober...@msn.com wrote on 29/4/03 12:37 pm:
Robert, what I dont understand if (UNICEF) is the Mark of the Beast as you
say, why are so many US christian Churches from the far right involved with
the organisatiion at all? Surely if what you say is true would they not
all be running away from it?.............Errol
łNew Sheriff in Town˛: The Christian Right Nears Major Victory at the United
Nations.......By Jennifer Butler
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v16n2/PE_Butler2.htm
Robert Arvay
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAD43D02.2126F%err...@ntlworld.com>...
> Robert, what I dont understand if (UNICEF) is the Mark of the Beast as you
> say,
Actually, I did not say that. What I did say is that, "If the UN is
an interim step along the way toward a world government, then it is no
wonder that The Revelation draws a picture of such government as the
bludgeon of the anti-Christ." A step along the way is not UNICEF =
anti-Christ.
> why are so many US christian Churches from the far right involved with
> the organisatiion at all? Surely if what you say is true would they not
> all be running away from it?.............Errol
>
> łNew Sheriff in Town˛: The Christian Right Nears Major Victory at the United
> Nations.......By Jennifer Butler
>
> http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v16n2/PE_Butler2.htm
As to "far right" churches involving themselves with UNICEF, I can't
speak for them. It's no secret that UNICEF has for years promoted an
agenda at odds with Christian conservatism.
BTW, the author I quoted (Wendy McElroy) is an independent-thinking
liberal, not a conservative.
==========
errol9
>
> errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:<BAD43D02.2126F%err...@ntlworld.com>...
>
>> Robert, what I dont understand if (UNICEF) is the Mark of the Beast as you
>> say,
>
> Actually, I did not say that. What I did say is that, "If the UN is
> an interim step along the way toward a world government, then it is no
> wonder that The Revelation draws a picture of such government as the
> bludgeon of the anti-Christ." A step along the way is not UNICEF =
> anti-Christ.
How many world citizens (population approx 6 billion people) do you believe
hold such views as yourself?
As a citizen of the USA which propagates a political system called Democracy
with a voting system which allows all citizens of the USA (approx 300
million) to vote for the country's president and government would you not
agree that before a world government was ever to evolve then all the 6
billion world citizens should also be allowed to vote?
How could such a world democratic goverment run along similar lines as the
USA be called the anti-christ?...................Errol
Robert Arvay
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAD4AFD8.212DC%err...@ntlworld.com>...
> >
> >> Robert, what I dont understand if (UNICEF) is the Mark of the Beast as you
> >> say,
> >
> > Actually, I did not say that. What I did say is that, "If the UN is
> > an interim step along the way toward a world government, then it is no
> > wonder that The Revelation draws a picture of such government as the
> > bludgeon of the anti-Christ." A step along the way is not UNICEF =
> > anti-Christ.
>
> How many world citizens (population approx 6 billion people) do you believe
> hold such views as yourself?
At least half a dozen. :)
>
> As a citizen of the USA which propagates a political system called Democracy
Not to split hairs, but our form of government is a republic. We
choose our representatives by democratic vote, but once they are
chosen, government policy is not democratic, it's republican (lower
case letters).
> with a voting system which allows all citizens of the USA (approx 300
> million) to vote for the country's president and government would you not
> agree that before a world government was ever to evolve then all the 6
> billion world citizens should also be allowed to vote?
>
> How could such a world democratic goverment run along similar lines as the
> USA be called the anti-christ?...................Errol
If all 6 billion people in the world were to have a one-man-one-vote
election for world leader, could we safely predict that the only
person with a reasonable chance of getting elected would be Chinese
(or perhaps Indian)?
But more to the point, the best form of government is that one in
which the people govern themselves. They may turn over the day-to-day
routines of government to the elected officials. But the electorate
has a responsibility to remain informed, to keep close scrutiny of the
government, and to replace that government whenever the electorate so
chooses.
Such a governmental philosophy requires that government be localized.
It could never work for a massive, distant, all-powerful global
regime.
Government decisions should always be made at the lowest level
possible. But try telling the US government that. The tendency of
all government is to grow, to accrue more power to itself, and to
maximize its tax revenues. If this is a problem with the US
government, just try to imagine this problem in a world government.
Once a world government is in place, these tendencies will not only
continue, but far, far more will be at stake than is now the case with
national governments. If you lived under Saddam, and did not like the
way he was running Iraq, you could hope to escape to another country,
or that he would be overthrown. Can you hope to escape a world
government? If a national government becomes too outrageous in its
policies, other nations can rise up against it. Who could rise up
against a world government with absolute monopoly on real power (which
alone knows all the secrets necessary to prevent challenges to its
power)?
World government is not a mere next phase after national governments.
It is a quantum leap, a change in state (no pun) as if from liquid to
solid. Once a world gov't is established, you will no longer
recognize your life. Everything you do or say will be subject to the
fiat of a government dominated by people utterly unlike you, with
different values, different perspectives, and different worldviews.
They may not at first exercise that fiat, but it will always be
available to them, a sword over your head. You will always be
outvoted, and outvoted by people with no democratic tradition.
The only world government that can ever succeed is world government
with Jesus the Messiah at its head.
errol9
Rober...@msn.com wrote on 30/4/03 12:11 pm:
>
> Not to split hairs, but our form of government is a republic. We
> choose our representatives by democratic vote, but once they are
> chosen, government policy is not democratic, it's republican (lower
> case letters).
A republic or republican party only means there is no Monarchy It does not
guarantee any more or less moral justice or better living standards for its
people than a country with a Monarch, be they constitutional or otherwise.
For instance Irish Republicianism is as far left and neo Marxist as American
Republicianism is as far right and evangelic Protestant at present.
Like wise Republicianism in Iran is dominated by Shi'ite Islam. Many other
Republic's throughout the world are tinpot Dictatorships........Errol
Robert Arvay
(1) A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in
modern times is usually a president.
(2) A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of
citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives
responsible to them.
You are using definition number one, which excludes only monarchies,
but includes tyrannies, which are republics in name only.
I am using definition number two, which specifies that the officers of
the government are responsible to the voters--- and that the voters
hold the supreme power.
It is this accountability feature that is the critical ingredient of
any just government. But do not mistake mere elections for
accountability. If the election is based upon misinformnation,
disinformation, or even upon an apathetic electorate, then the
democratic component of the definition is nothing but charade, and you
have not a republic but a bureaucratic tyranny.
Governments do not willingly cede power, neither to their competitors
in an election, nor to the electors who challenge their authority.
Even the best of governments tend toward expansion.
The 2000 presidential election in the USA highlighted much of what can
go wrong, even in a nation rightly noted for its fair elections. The
margin of victory was so razor thin (also in some senatorial races)
that the difference could easily have been made by fraud (Missouri
polls were kept open in Democrat precincts only), ignorance (some
voters said the ballots confused them), and happenstance (a few voters
could not find their precincts), or by some combination of these.
Therefore, the charges that Pres Bush was appointed by the US Supreme
Court, even though the Florida Supreme Court tried to award Gore the
state in definance of explicit laws to the contrary.
Such controversies undermine confidence in elections.
But who is going to propose a law that requires voters to exercise due
diligence, and supreme courts to rule by what the law actually says
(ex: 9 days should be interpreted as 9 days)?
===============
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAD58A59.21601%err...@ntlworld.com>...
errol9
> Republic--- Definitions from online dictionary:
>
> (1) A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in
> modern times is usually a president.
>
> (2) A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of
> citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives
> responsible to them.
>
> You are using definition number one, which excludes only monarchies,
> but includes tyrannies, which are republics in name only.
> I am using definition number two, which specifies that the officers of
> the government are responsible to the voters--- and that the voters
> hold the supreme power.
Although many right wing Protestant Unionists in my country would agree with
your classification of Irish republicanism, I doubt if Sinn Fein would
agree. Because their political policies have far leftist views it happens to
be the responsiblity of their voters who vote them into office and they
would class theirselves under defination number two.
> It is this accountability feature that is the critical ingredient of
> any just government. But do not mistake mere elections for
> accountability. If the election is based upon misinformnation,
> disinformation, or even upon an apathetic electorate, then the
> democratic component of the definition is nothing but charade, and you
> have not a republic but a bureaucratic tyranny.
>
> Governments do not willingly cede power, neither to their competitors
> in an election, nor to the electors who challenge their authority.
> Even the best of governments tend toward expansion.
>
> The 2000 presidential election in the USA highlighted much of what can
> go wrong, even in a nation rightly noted for its fair elections. The
> margin of victory was so razor thin (also in some senatorial races)
> that the difference could easily have been made by fraud (Missouri
> polls were kept open in Democrat precincts only), ignorance (some
> voters said the ballots confused them), and happenstance (a few voters
> could not find their precincts), or by some combination of these.
>
> Therefore, the charges that Pres Bush was appointed by the US Supreme
> Court, even though the Florida Supreme Court tried to award Gore the
> state in definance of explicit laws to the contrary.
>
> Such controversies undermine confidence in elections.
>
> But who is going to propose a law that requires voters to exercise due
> diligence, and supreme courts to rule by what the law actually says
> (ex: 9 days should be interpreted as 9 days)?
I was in New york visiting my sister during the last US election, and all I
can say is such a cliffhanger it was. However irrespective of all the hanky
panky which went on for all to see on our TV it can only have positive
influences for the next election. We will wait and see. Do you think GBJ
will get in again for another term of office or will he follow in his
daddy's footsteps and lose the next election?...............Errol
Robert Arvay
(snip)
>
> I was in New york visiting my sister during the last US election, and all I
> can say is such a cliffhanger it was. However irrespective of all the hanky
> panky which went on for all to see on our TV it can only have positive
> influences for the next election. We will wait and see. Do you think GBJ
> will get in again for another term of office or will he follow in his
> daddy's footsteps and lose the next election?...............Errol
> >
One can only speculate at this early date.
The American voter can be fickle. I never thought Clinton could pull
as much as 10% of the popular vote. But, even among those people who
told pollsters that Clinton was of immoral character, many voted for
him anyway!
Frankly, I think that there are two people to watch, over the next two
election cycles, both women: Socialist Hillary Clinton (whose
political skill and ruthless determination are formidable) and
Condoleeza Rice, a brilliant states(wo)man of historic proportion. A
race between them would be most facsinating.
errol9
Rober...@msn.com wrote on 1/5/03 11:59 am:
> errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:<BAD60182.217DB%err...@ntlworld.com>...
>
> Frankly, I think that there are two people to watch, over the next two
> election cycles, both women: Socialist Hillary Clinton (whose
> political skill and ruthless determination are formidable) and
> Condoleeza Rice, a brilliant states(wo)man of historic proportion. A
> race between them would be most facsinating.
Interesting, the US never had a woman president before, maybe it would make
a change as long as the US Constitution has no silly prejudiced rules like
the Baha'is have to keep women from becoming UHJ members.
UK had one woman (Margaret Thatcher) who was elected three times as prime
minister for the Conserative party. She resigned during her third term as
she became unpopular. Tony Blair has been twice in office since, a first
time for the labour party ever to be elected twice since its formation.
In Ireland two womencalled (Mary) have been the last two Presidents, Mary
Robinson and Mary McAleese. Both women have been exellent success stories
and prove without a shadow of a doubt Women are just as good at top jobs as
are men, in some instances (especially here in Ireland) I would say better.
Ofcourse I would say that about Mary McAleese as the President and her
husband Martin send me a Christmas and St Patrick's day card every year ever
since I loaned them four oil canvases for to be hung and displayed in the
dining room of the president's residence for an official function. Below is
info & history of Áras an Uachtaráin which had a colourful history before
becoming the Official Residence of the President of Ireland in Pheonix Park
Dublin since 1938..................................................Errol
http://www.gov.ie/aras/history.htm
http://www.gov.ie/aras/biographies.htm
Robert Arvay
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAD6D9D3.21AD0%err...@ntlworld.com>...
> in article e247d7b6.03050...@posting.google.com, Robert Arvay at
> Rober...@msn.com wrote on 1/5/03 11:59 am:
>
> > errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:<BAD60182.217DB%err...@ntlworld.com>...
> >
> > Frankly, I think that there are two people to watch, over the next two
> > election cycles, both women: Socialist Hillary Clinton (whose
> > political skill and ruthless determination are formidable) and
> > Condoleeza Rice, a brilliant states(wo)man of historic proportion. A
> > race between them would be most facsinating.
>
> Interesting, the US never had a woman president before, maybe it would make
> a change as long as the US Constitution has no silly prejudiced rules like
> the Baha'is have to keep women from becoming UHJ members.
Whoops! BIG whoops. You know, I just happened to be glancing over my
copy of the US Constitution, and wouldn't you know it. I just
discovered one penumbra and two emanations which strictly prohibit
women from ever being able to hold the presidency. (The US Supreme
Court discovered penumbra and emanations to invent--- err, that is, to
justify ---- its own silly opinions, so why-- oh why-- can't I?
Somewhere, over the rain bow...)
Hillary is really going to be upset when she hears about this. Watch
out for her famous flying ashtrays.
>
> UK had one woman (Margaret Thatcher) who was elected three times as prime
> minister for the Conserative party. She resigned during her third term as
> she became unpopular. Tony Blair has been twice in office since, a first
> time for the labour party ever to be elected twice since its formation.
>
In the USA, the supposedly anti-woman conservatives have placed more
women to more and higher offices than the supposedly pro-woman
liberals have.
> In Ireland two womencalled (Mary) have been the last two Presidents, Mary
> Robinson and Mary McAleese. Both women have been exellent success stories
> and prove without a shadow of a doubt Women are just as good at top jobs as
> are men, in some instances (especially here in Ireland) I would say better.
> Ofcourse I would say that about Mary McAleese as the President and her
> husband Martin send me a Christmas and St Patrick's day card every year ever
> since I loaned them four oil canvases for to be hung and displayed in the
> dining room of the president's residence for an official function.
I'm duly impressed. I tried a similar thing, but without good result.
I sent four works of crayon on brown paper bag.
> Below is
> info & history of Áras an Uachtaráin which had a colourful history before
> becoming the Official Residence of the President of Ireland in Pheonix Park
> Dublin since 1938..................................................Errol
>
> http://www.gov.ie/aras
>
> http://www.gov.ie/aras/history.htm
>
> http://www.gov.ie/aras/biographies.htm
I find history the more fascinating the older I get. Perhaps because
I can remember more of it.
errol9
>> Interesting, the US never had a woman president before, maybe it would make
>> a change as long as the US Constitution has no silly prejudiced rules like
>> the Baha'is have to keep women from becoming UHJ members.
>
> Whoops! BIG whoops. You know, I just happened to be glancing over my
> copy of the US Constitution, and wouldn't you know it. I just
> discovered one penumbra and two emanations which strictly prohibit
> women from ever being able to hold the presidency. (The US Supreme
> Court discovered penumbra and emanations to invent--- err, that is, to
> justify ---- its own silly opinions, so why-- oh why-- can't I?
> Somewhere, over the rain bow...)
>
> Hillary is really going to be upset when she hears about this. Watch
> out for her famous flying ashtrays.
So I wonder what the American feminist movements have to say about this
"one penumbra and two emanations (in the US Constitution) which strictly
prohibit women from ever being able to hold the presidency" When you are at
it have a look and see if "State Governors" are only allowed to be male
also, or maybe there is a state governoress in one of the US 50 states, it's
just I never heard of one. For instant if Hillary Clinton has a seat on the
senate for New York state at present could she run for Governoress of new
York state at Albany instead of President next election.
So according to the US Constitution any man (not woman) over the age of 35
is legible to run for the presidency as long as he has plenty and plenty of
greenbacks to pay for the election campaign................Errol
Paul Hammond
>
> > Republic--- Definitions from online dictionary:
> >
> > (1) A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in
> > modern times is usually a president.
> >
> > (2) A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of
> > citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives
> > responsible to them.
> >
> > You are using definition number one, which excludes only monarchies,
> > but includes tyrannies, which are republics in name only.
>
> > I am using definition number two, which specifies that the officers of
> > the government are responsible to the voters--- and that the voters
> > hold the supreme power.
>
> Although many right wing Protestant Unionists in my country would agree with
> your classification of Irish republicanism, I doubt if Sinn Fein would
> agree. Because their political policies have far leftist views it happens to
> be the responsiblity of their voters who vote them into office and they
> would class theirselves under defination number two.
>
Errol,
I don't see any criticism of Sinn Fein or Irish Republicanism
implied in what Robert has said.
My impression is that Robert knows very little in detail about
the politics of Ireland, and didn't, in fact, comment on
your Irish example - he was instead criticising your taking
tyrants and dictators as examples of republicanism - that is
a little bit like saying that old East Germany must have
been a democracy because its official name was the
"German Democratic Republic".
Despite the connection of Sinn Fein with IRA, I don't think
anyone believes that should Sinn Fein ever form a government
that it would appoint Gerry Adams dictator for life and
abolish elections. Sinn Fein has participated in a
mature democratic culture for many years now, and it's
no Nazi party.
> > It is this accountability feature that is the critical ingredient of
> > any just government. But do not mistake mere elections for
> > accountability. If the election is based upon misinformnation,
> > disinformation, or even upon an apathetic electorate, then the
> > democratic component of the definition is nothing but charade, and you
> > have not a republic but a bureaucratic tyranny.
> >
> > Governments do not willingly cede power, neither to their competitors
> > in an election, nor to the electors who challenge their authority.
> > Even the best of governments tend toward expansion.
> >
> > The 2000 presidential election in the USA highlighted much of what can
> > go wrong, even in a nation rightly noted for its fair elections. The
> > margin of victory was so razor thin (also in some senatorial races)
> > that the difference could easily have been made by fraud (Missouri
> > polls were kept open in Democrat precincts only), ignorance (some
> > voters said the ballots confused them), and happenstance (a few voters
> > could not find their precincts), or by some combination of these.
> >
> > Therefore, the charges that Pres Bush was appointed by the US Supreme
> > Court, even though the Florida Supreme Court tried to award Gore the
> > state in definance of explicit laws to the contrary.
> >
> > Such controversies undermine confidence in elections.
> >
Indeed. And someone from the other end of the political
spectrum can point to controversies in Florida. The
fact remains that had Gore won in Tennessee, he would
have been president.
> > But who is going to propose a law that requires voters to exercise due
> > diligence, and supreme courts to rule by what the law actually says
> > (ex: 9 days should be interpreted as 9 days)?
>
> I was in New york visiting my sister during the last US election, and all I
> can say is such a cliffhanger it was. However irrespective of all the hanky
> panky which went on for all to see on our TV it can only have positive
> influences for the next election.
It draws attention to the minor flaws in the system, that
ordinarily would be ignored as being within an acceptable
margin for error. You cannot have a perfect voting system,
and in close results, the flaws get focused on, because
they might materially affect the outcome.
I am somewhat reminded of a close election in Britain
that was won, after numerous recounts, by a matter of
some very small number of votes (2 or a dozen, I can't
remember exactly).
The losing (Conservative) candidate was understandably
upset, and he eventually managed to get the vote declared
void, and the election re-run.
In the second contest, he lost by a healthy margin of
a few thousand votes - presumably voted down by an
electorate annoyed at having to come out to vote
all over again.
Really, the result of the last presidential election was
that close - and that is why the flaws in the system
became headline news while the result was hanging in
the balance. It might mean that some of these
areas are tightened up next time around - but whenever
there is another close result, there will be another
set of flaws that seem to decide the result - it won't
be hanging chads, but something else will be exposed.
> We will wait and see. Do you think GBJ
> will get in again for another term of office or will he follow in his
> daddy's footsteps and lose the next election?...............Errol
Obviously, I hope for the latter, and presumably Robert hopes
for the former - but after 4 years of eventful presidency, the
result will have more to do with Bush's record than the
way the American system happens to work.
Paul
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 2/5/03 9:43 am:
>
> I don't see any criticism of Sinn Fein or Irish Republicanism
> implied in what Robert has said.
Nima is correct 100%, you are such a fecking smart ass of an arrogant
(little boy) who thinks he knows what everyone else is thinking.
Robert was never accused of any criticism of Sinn Fein in my post, so stop
trying to mix it again you slimey little creep.......Errol
Robert Arvay
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAD7D232.21B18%err...@ntlworld.com>...
(snip)
>
> So according to the US Constitution any man (not woman) over the age of 35
> is legible to run for the presidency as long as he has plenty and plenty of
> greenbacks to pay for the election campaign................Errol
I was just kidding, obviously, about the males-only rule for the
presidency.
I was poking fun at some liberal judges who make unjustified
interpretations of the Constitution so as to fit the personal opinion
of the judge, rather than to fit what the Constitution actually says.
(This is comparable in some ways to how liberal theologians--- and
Baha'is--- interpret the Bible.)
These liberal interpretations always go in the direction of abrogating
the historic context and intent of the Constitution, never toward
reinforcing it. (Which is why I facetiously made up--- er, found--- a
politically incorrect penumbra.) One of the most famous of these
interpretations is the "separation of church and state," which is
nowhere in the Constitution. Regarding religion, the Constitution
prohibits only a religious test for public office, and the
establishment of a state religion. Period. Indeed, the Constitution
limits the powers of the federal government, not the influence of
religious morals in public policy. But the justices have turned that
backward.
The US government is a good case study of how easily a just and noble
government can, by accretion of powers to which it is not entitled, be
slowly turned toward tyranny over the very people who are supposed to
rule over the government. ("The price of freedom is eternal
vigilance...")
The United Nations is degenerating quite swiftly toward this state of
being, limited only by the USA and a small number of nations who are
not eager to surrender their national sovereignty to a collection of
unelected despots, such as Cuba and Libya, two members of the UN HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION (yes, I'm not making this up).
Perversions of governmental power seem always to begin with good
intentions. But that pretext is soon abandoned in favor of raw power.
I hope Condoleeza Rice understands this, because Hillary Clinton most
assuredly does not. And one of them is quite possibly a future
president.
May God protect us.
Dermod Ryder
> So according to the US Constitution any man (not woman) over the age
of 35
> is legible to run for the presidency as long as he has plenty and
plenty of
> greenbacks to pay for the election campaign................Errol
The bit about the "greenbacks" is NOT in the Constitution.
>
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 2/5/03 9:43 am:
> Despite the connection of Sinn Fein with IRA, I don't think
> anyone believes that should Sinn Fein ever form a government
> that it would appoint Gerry Adams dictator for life and
> abolish elections.
You dont know what you are talking about as usual Paul, and what little you
do know about US politics you certainly know less about Irish Politice
The two Sinn Fein members of parliament Gerry Adams and Martin Maginness
refuse to take their seats in Westminister. So I doubt they could ever form
a Government even if their party were to gain another 300 Members of
parliament, they would have to start a party in England Scotland and Wales
to do that and outvote the labour and Tory party.
For Sinn Fein to ever form a government in the Republic of ireland it would
need another miracle there also, it only has 4% of the votes.
In the state of Northern Ireland Sinn Fein had 17% of the electoral vote
last election. Here we do not have a government. We only have a devolved
assembly (like the Welsh assembly) responsible to the British Government at
Westminister. Sinn Fein is the smaller of all the four parties which
together made up the 110 member Assembly, controlled by a British secretary
of State responsible to the British parliament at Westminister.
Only yesterday the elections were shelved for six months, because Sinn fein
& the IRA refused to give assurances to Primeminister Tony Blair ( The
British Government) Primeminister Berti Adhern( The Irish Government) and
Richard Hass (Northern ireland representative from the US Government) their
war was over and dispose all of their weapons hidden in secret arms dumps in
the Republic of Ireland. All three governments ( US, UK & Irish Republic)
have given Sinn Fein and the IRA five whole years to make two simple
statements No1) there war was over, and No2) dispose of all weapons hidden
in arms dumps in the Republic. They refuse to do so.
> Sinn Fein has participated in a mature democratic culture for many years now,
Well your view Paul and the leaders of the three governments mentioned
differ. No mature democratic political party needs a private army with
hidden arms dump's. I suppose in England if the BNP had secret arms dumps I
wonder would you say it was a mature democratic political party?
> and it's no Nazi party.
The Nazi party were National Socialists and totally anti marxist. Sinn Fein
(irish Republicians) are neo marxists and as far left as one could go. Sinn
Fein in English means "Ourselves Alone".................Errol
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 2/5/03 9:43 am:
> My impression is that Robert knows very little in detail about
> the politics of Ireland,
Robert probably has more knowledge of politics in Ireland than you have.
Errol
Paul Hammond
> in article c977f97b.0305...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 2/5/03 9:43 am:
>
> >
> > I don't see any criticism of Sinn Fein or Irish Republicanism
> > implied in what Robert has said.
>
> Nima is correct 100%, you are such a fecking smart ass of an arrogant
> (little boy) who thinks he knows what everyone else is thinking.
>
Errol, I just have the ability to read a text and discern
what it being communicated - a skill normally taught in
elementary school.
Don't whine and complain at *me* because I point your
errors out!
> Robert was never accused of any criticism of Sinn Fein in my post, so stop
> trying to mix it again you slimey little creep.......Errol
You very obviously thought that when he was comparing and
contrasting the two definitions of "republic" that he
was putting the *Irish* republic, and republicans into
one particular category.
Actually, Robert made no comment on Sinn Fein, but your
answer was as if he had.
Thus, you clearly made an assumption, and based your
whole reply on what you *thought* you had read,
rather than what was there.
If you are going to react by giving personal hits
against me, there is little point continuing to
try to have any kind of reasonable discussion with
you here.
Paul
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 3/5/03 4:01 am:
> errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:<BAD81798.21B8A%err...@ntlworld.com>...
>> in article c977f97b.0305...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
>> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 2/5/03 9:43 am:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't see any criticism of Sinn Fein or Irish Republicanism
>>> implied in what Robert has said.
>>
>> Nima is correct 100%, you are such a fecking smart ass of an arrogant
>> (little boy) who thinks he knows what everyone else is thinking.
>>
>
> Errol, I just have the ability to read a text and discern
> what it being communicated - a skill normally taught in
> elementary school.
The only ability you have Mr Hammond is to mix it, cause friction and
shitstir in any objective discussion I have with any other poster to TRB
>
> Don't whine and complain at *me* because I point your
> errors out!
>
>> Robert was never accused of any criticism of Sinn Fein in my post, so stop
>> trying to mix it again you slimey little creep.......Errol
>
> You very obviously thought that when he was comparing and
> contrasting the two definitions of "republic" that he
> was putting the *Irish* republic, and republicans into
> one particular category.
>
> Actually, Robert made no comment on Sinn Fein, but your
> answer was as if he had.
If that is so, why did make the above statement, insinuating I did see
criticism?
> Thus, you clearly made an assumption, and based your
> whole reply on what you *thought* you had read,
> rather than what was there.
Then you get Robert to support your THINKING to prove your point that I was
insinuating he was being critical of Sinn Fein, when all I was doing was
making a point of the vast differences in the political mandates as is (far
Left is to far right) between US Republician *policy* and Irish Republician
*policy*. Namely, both calling themselves *REPUBLICIAN* yet they have
complete and totally opposite views.
>
> If you are going to react by giving personal hits
> against me, there is little point continuing to
> try to have any kind of reasonable discussion with
> you here.
>
> Paul
You know damm well what you were up to, when you came into the discussion in
the first place. That's why Nima, myself and Starr and others are
convinced you are an AO mole. Your only object on TRB is to try and divide
ex-Baha'is & Dissidents against one another to create dis-unity. Your
actions are most bizarre, weird and a complete give-away for someone who
states he was never a member of the Bahai faith.
Remember, you are not the only one who was taught at elementary school to
read a text and discern what is being communicated...........Errol
Paul Hammond
> in article c977f97b.03050...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 3/5/03 4:01 am:
>
> > errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:<BAD81798.21B8A%err...@ntlworld.com>...
> >> in article c977f97b.0305...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
> >> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 2/5/03 9:43 am:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I don't see any criticism of Sinn Fein or Irish Republicanism
> >>> implied in what Robert has said.
> >>
> >> Nima is correct 100%, you are such a fecking smart ass of an arrogant
> >> (little boy) who thinks he knows what everyone else is thinking.
> >>
> >
> > Errol, I just have the ability to read a text and discern
> > what it being communicated - a skill normally taught in
> > elementary school.
>
> The only ability you have Mr Hammond is to mix it, cause friction and
> shitstir in any objective discussion I have with any other poster to TRB
Clearly, it is impossible for me to have a reasonable
conversation with you, because your animosity towards
me causes you to read *everything* I write in reply to
you as a personal attack upon you.
> >
> > Don't whine and complain at *me* because I point your
> > errors out!
> >
> >> Robert was never accused of any criticism of Sinn Fein in my post, so stop
> >> trying to mix it again you slimey little creep.......Errol
> >
> > You very obviously thought that when he was comparing and
> > contrasting the two definitions of "republic" that he
> > was putting the *Irish* republic, and republicans into
> > one particular category.
> >
> > Actually, Robert made no comment on Sinn Fein, but your
> > answer was as if he had.
>
> If that is so, why did make the above statement, insinuating I did see
> criticism?
>
Errol, allow me to requote what was actually said a couple of
days ago:
> Republic--- Definitions from online dictionary:
>
> (1) A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in
> modern times is usually a president.
>
> (2) A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of
> citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives
> responsible to them.
>
> You are using definition number one, which excludes only monarchies,
> but includes tyrannies, which are republics in name only.
> I am using definition number two, which specifies that the officers of
> the government are responsible to the voters--- and that the voters
> hold the supreme power.
Although many right wing Protestant Unionists in my country would agree with
your classification of Irish republicanism, I doubt if Sinn Fein would
agree. Because their political policies have far leftist views it happens to
be the responsiblity of their voters who vote them into office and they
would class theirselves under defination number two.
---
Now, if you are *not* thinking that Robert is saying something
about Irish Republicanism, why the hell are you posting "Sinn
Fein would not agree" and "they would class themselves
under definition two".
Robert didn't say anything about Sinn Fein. He posted two
definitions of the word "republic" and clarified which one
*he* was using.
> > Thus, you clearly made an assumption, and based your
> > whole reply on what you *thought* you had read,
> > rather than what was there.
>
> Then you get Robert to support your THINKING to prove your point that I was
> insinuating he was being critical of Sinn Fein, when all I was doing was
> making a point of the vast differences in the political mandates as is (far
> Left is to far right) between US Republician *policy* and Irish Republician
> *policy*. Namely, both calling themselves *REPUBLICIAN* yet they have
> complete and totally opposite views.
Errol, the word "republic" and two parties which call themselve
"Republican" have nothing to do with each other.
You made a similar mistake recently when you thought that
a definition of the American Democratic Party was actually
a definition of the word "democrat" (lower case d).
You posted something that defined a Democrat as "a member of
one of the two main political parties in America" and thought
that it was a definition of "democracy"(lower case d) which
meant that there had to be at least two main parties.
The organisation of political parties is not a part of
the definition of "democracy".
> >
> > If you are going to react by giving personal hits
> > against me, there is little point continuing to
> > try to have any kind of reasonable discussion with
> > you here.
> >
> > Paul
>
> You know damm well what you were up to, when you came into the discussion in
> the first place. That's why Nima, myself and Starr and others are
> convinced you are an AO mole.
Like I say, your personal reactions to myself are causing you
to badly misread both my intentions and my text.
>
> Remember, you are not the only one who was taught at elementary school to
> read a text and discern what is being communicated...........Errol
You are reading what is not there. I made a post, which IMHO,
provided a substantial contribution to this thread, and you
have reduced everything to the level of personal attacks, brought
in the nonsense from Nima and Star about me that has nothing
to do with this thread, and focussed on one very small
part of my post.
Paul
errol9
> Although many right wing Protestant Unionists in my country would agree with
> your classification of Irish republicanism, I doubt if Sinn Fein would
> agree.
In the name of feck are you that thick. Sinn Fein classifies itself as Irish
republican with leftist neo-marxist views. Protestant Unionists dont write
their policy mandate for them. Why do you think Sinn Fein only get 4% of the
vote in the Irish Republic? Its because they are only small fry and just
one of 10 other political parties in the Republic of Ireland. Why dont you
read here and maybe you will learn something about Irish politics
http://www.ulb.ac.be/soco/cevipol/Interesting%20sites/Irish-parties.htm
JAZ
> in article c977f97b.0305...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 3/5/03 11:32 am:
>
> > Although many right wing Protestant Unionists in my country would agree with
> > your classification of Irish republicanism, I doubt if Sinn Fein would
> > agree.
>
> In the name of feck are you that thick.
Errol - This guy is an Middle Eastern ethnic and doesn't know s***t
about English-Irish stuff.
Jaz
errol9
Jazzm...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/5/03 8:26 am:
> errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:<BAD9A166.21EB9%err...@ntlworld.com>...
>> in article c977f97b.0305...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
>> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 3/5/03 11:32 am:
>>
>>> Although many right wing Protestant Unionists in my country would agree with
>>> your classification of Irish republicanism, I doubt if Sinn Fein would
>>> agree.
>>
>> In the name of feck are you that thick.
>
>
> Errol - This guy is an Middle Eastern ethnic and doesn't know s***t
> about English-Irish stuff.
Correct 100% Jaz, Paul read a book once on James Joyce and watched the
series Father Ted and he thinks he is qualified to give lectures (especially
to American TRB posters) on 20th century Irish/English political history.
Errol
Dermod Ryder
> in article d48e7521.03050...@posting.google.com, JAZ at
> Jazzm...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/5/03 8:26 am:
s***t
> > about English-Irish stuff.
>
> Correct 100% Jaz, Paul read a book once on James Joyce and watched
the
> series Father Ted and he thinks he is qualified to give lectures
(especially
> to American TRB posters) on 20th century Irish/English political
history.
>
> Errol
> >
> > Jaz
Whereas Deadbrain Splasher never read anything yet still felt free to
lecture us on the composition of the UN security Council.
Pat Kohli
JAZ wrote:
> errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAD9A166.21EB9%err...@ntlworld.com>...
> > in article c977f97b.0305...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
> > paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 3/5/03 11:32 am:
> >
> > > Although many right wing Protestant Unionists in my country would agree with
> > > your classification of Irish republicanism, I doubt if Sinn Fein would
> > > agree.
> >
> > In the name of feck are you that thick.
>
> Errol - This guy is an Middle Eastern ethnic and doesn't know s***t
> about English-Irish stuff.
Paul,
This guy appears to be a first time poster to usenet, posting form Australia, and since he
seems to think that "Middle Eastern" is one ethnicity, and tht such people can not comprehend
"English-Irish stuff", I think the readers will conclude that you are probably from the UK,
not anywhere in the Middle East.
Jaz,
Sometimes, when you know SFA about something, it is best to say what you know; capiche?
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Paul Hammond
> "errol9" <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:BADA96AC.22072%err...@ntlworld.com...
> > in article d48e7521.03050...@posting.google.com, JAZ at
> > Jazzm...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/5/03 8:26 am:
> > > Errol - This guy is an Middle Eastern ethnic and doesn't know
> s***t
> > > about English-Irish stuff.
> >
> > Correct 100% Jaz, Paul read a book once on James Joyce and watched
> the
> > series Father Ted and he thinks he is qualified to give lectures
> (especially
> > to American TRB posters) on 20th century Irish/English political
> history.
> >
> > Errol
Actually, Errol, I have read Finnegans Wake twice, and I
am also a big fan of Sam Beckett (not the one played by
Scott Bakula). So, why would the fact that I like
two Irish writers (one catholic, and one protestant)
make me an expert on 20th century Irish politics?
Partition happened after Joyce was a decade on the
continent, and Beckett preferred to live in France, and
didn't really write about provincial politics.
I haven't given any lectures in this thread - merely
pointed out a place where you have leaped to
a conclusion without understanding what was being
said to you.
Paul
Paul Hammond
> in article c977f97b.0305...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 3/5/03 11:32 am:
>
> > Although many right wing Protestant Unionists in my country would agree with
> > your classification of Irish republicanism, I doubt if Sinn Fein would
> > agree.
>
> In the name of feck are you that thick. Sinn Fein classifies itself as Irish
> republican with leftist neo-marxist views. Protestant Unionists dont write
> their policy mandate for them.
So, who mentioned Sinn Fein again?
You are mixing up "republic" and "Republican"
Paul
Paul Hammond
> in article c977f97b.0305...@posting.google.com, Paul Hammond at
> paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 3/5/03 11:32 am:
>
> > Although many right wing Protestant Unionists in my country would agree with
> > your classification of Irish republicanism, I doubt if Sinn Fein would
> > agree.
>
> In the name of feck are you that thick. Sinn Fein classifies itself as Irish
> republican with leftist neo-marxist views. Protestant Unionists dont write
> their policy mandate for them.
By the way, just in case anyone is confused by the way
Errol has quoted this - the paragraph beginning "Although many
right wing Proestant Unionists" above was written by Errol.
I was quoting it from earlier in the thread, to remind Errol
of what had already been said.
So, it appears Errol is calling himself as thick as feck
here!
Paul
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 4/5/03 4:56 pm:
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
The broken clock is right twice a day. Eventually, errol9 was bound to be right about
something.
errol9
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 4/5/03 9:22 pm:
Here we have it cynical insults all round from a BIGS. Funny when I was a
Bahai giving out insults and getting plenty back from ex-Bahais this Guy
snitched on me to the UK NSA. What a hypocrite.
Interesting our English friend Paul has not learned to use proper English.
including exclamation marks when one takes a quote from someone else's
post. He his very good at picking up others typo errors though. The signs of
and inferior schoolteacher who thinks all on the internet are his schoolkids
Errol
Paul Hammond
You mean "quotation marks".
The fact that I was quoting you was clearly stated. Here is
how I quoted you:
---THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE QUOTE FROM MY MESSAGE---
Errol, allow me to requote what was actually said a couple of
days ago:
> Republic--- Definitions from online dictionary:
>
> (1) A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in
> modern times is usually a president.
>
> (2) A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of
> citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives
> responsible to them.
>
> You are using definition number one, which excludes only monarchies,
> but includes tyrannies, which are republics in name only.
> I am using definition number two, which specifies that the officers of
> the government are responsible to the voters--- and that the voters
> hold the supreme power.
Although many right wing Protestant Unionists in my country would agree with
your classification of Irish republicanism, I doubt if Sinn Fein would
agree. Because their political policies have far leftist views it happens to
be the responsiblity of their voters who vote them into office and they
would class theirselves under defination number two.
---
---THIS IS WHERE I STOPPED QUOTING, AND CONTINUED IN MY OWN
WORDS---
Now, if you are *not* thinking that Robert is saying something
about Irish Republicanism, why the hell are you posting "Sinn
Fein would not agree" and "they would class themselves
under definition two".
---THIS IS THE END OF MY QUOTE FROM THE LAST MESSAGE---
---NOW I AM CONTINUING TO WRITE MY NEW MESSAGE---
I had thought that this was very clear, since what Errol
said in reply to Robert's definition was the subject under
discussion, and I hadn't thought Errol's memory so bad
that he could totally forget what he had said just a
day or two before.
Perhaps I could have made things even clearer by
writing "Robert" above Robert's part, and "Errol"
above George's part. But, having said "let me
requote:" and finished the quotation with
"---", I really do not think I should be taking
responsibility for George's inability to
understand a text. Especially seeing as
how it is that very inability of his which is
under discussion right now.
Errol, perhaps you could have your mother
check your posts before you send them to
ensure that you do not make such a silly
mistake in future?
Paul
Pat Kohli
errol9 wrote:
It is just amazing how your memory has improved, and you now recall acting out 24/7
when you came to TRB - it wasn't just the flaming petro-bomb for Dermod's window.
> getting plenty back from ex-Bahais this Guy
> snitched on me to the UK NSA.
Too bad that you forgot that _you_asked_ me to report you to your NSA; some might
say you dared me to. Too bad you don't have the stomach to accept what you've asked
for.
GF: Why dont you report me to my NSA or the ABM one dissident has already done
GF: so. He will provide you with the number willingly. So what are you waiting
GF: for. Put your money were your mouth is.
GF:
GF: The answer you will probally get is, "Why are you subscribing to such a
GF: group in support of these anti- Baha'i bigots who are continiously attacking
GF: our Faith in the first place Mr Pat Kohli"?
GF:
GF: I hope you have a good answer for them.
GF:
GF: I have a good mind to report you to the UHJ for your support of Dermod Ryder
GF: and his anti Baha'i bigoted friends. What do you say to that?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl436803322d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=B9B859F4.AB6C%25george.fleming2%40btinternet.com
> What a hypocrite.
>
But you are an entertaining one.
>
> Interesting our English friend Paul has not learned to use proper English.
He does go to upper case when he starts his sentences, and periods when he finishes
them.
>
> including exclamation marks when one takes a quote from someone else's
> post. He his very good at picking up others typo errors though. The signs of
> and inferior schoolteacher who thinks all on the internet are his schoolkids
Lots of signs can be found; the trick is what one does with them.
- Pat
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 5/5/03 11:20 pm:
> Errol, perhaps you could have your mother
> check your posts before you send them to
> ensure that you do not make such a silly
> mistake in future?
>
> Paul
Thank you Chief Instructor of English on TRB
I will abide by your instructions if
you get your granny to check yours.
Errol
errol9
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 6/5/03 12:52 am:
>
> Too bad that you forgot that _you_asked_ me to report you to your NSA; some
> might
> say you dared me to. Too bad you don't have the stomach to accept what you've
> asked
> for.
If I dared you to jump of the Empire State building would you do that also?
Tell me do you always obey other Baha'is orders , or did you do it because
you just love being a snitch. I wonder how many other Baha'i s you have
reported to the AO during your Baha'i career. ...........Errol
Dermod Ryder
So you admit you still are a Bahai! I told you - you can't take me in
on this; you're an obvious AO plant and stooge attempting to
infiltrate enemy lines.
>
Cal E. Rollins
work and am not surprised that some of it hangs in the Irish chambers.
It's difficult to get ones work into any public venue, and when it's
achieved it's an achievement worth congratulating. If you're selling to
Americans let me know, I'm interested. My walls are getting so crowded
I may have to start thinking about putting things on the ceiling, but I
doubt the owners of my building would appreciate any Michelangelos
running around with brushes and paints. Can you put on-line some of the
paintings I saw before? --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Well, if Paul can understand the English spoken on Father Ted he's got
to be given credit for something English/Irish. I speak Sort Of English
but can hardly understand anything any of the characters are saying. So
far, I haven't hear "feck," "shite," or "ponce/punce." At least, those
would be something I'd recognize from my tutoring on TRB. --Ca
errol9
Rollins at crol...@webtv.net wrote on 6/5/03 5:43 pm:
Cal
Here are three websites were some of my visual art has been used. Dowload
the spirtual sanctuary one and all three are interlinked. Its an interfaith
website and not a Baha'i one, but they have used one of my paintings for the
Bahai website.
http://www.thespiritualsanctuary.org/Bahai/Bahai.html
http://www.thespiritualsanctuary.org/Index.html
http://www.warble.com/BahaiArtGallery/HTML/GeorgeFleming/Artist.html
Cal, send me your address by private e/mail or send a self addressed A4 size
envelope (address below) and I will send you on some signed catalogues of
other art work if you are still interested in having them for keepsakes.
As there was more demand (on the naval magazine market) for my book
"Magennis VC" I have just had another 500 books printed. It was first
Published by History Ireland LTD Dublin So if anyone is interested in a
signed copy of this book please contact me by private e/mail or read the
following advertisment I have in the Navy News magazine below.
Magennis VC: Signed copy of 224 page + 60 photographs biography of W.W.2
Victoria Cross winner L/seaman James Magennis send (11.95 sterling / 20 US
dollars inc P&P) to George Fleming 545a Lisburn Road Belfast BT9 7GQ
Northern Ireland. tele 02890 664629
The first edition was launched in the Submarine Museum in Gosport Hants and
three other museums in England and the Belfast City Hall in 1998.
http://www.edencamp.co.uk/press/200498.htm
James Magennis was born in West Belfast and served in the Royal Navy in
World War II. He was the only person from Northern Ireland to win the
Victoria Cross, the only naval rating with a VC to survive the war and the
only person in naval history to exit a submarine in a diving suit, perform a
military operation and return to the same submarine. Yet while honoured in
his adopted town of Bradford England, he was made to feel unwelcome and
virtually forgotten in his home town of Belfast. The author rescues Magennis
from obscurity in a book that begins with Magennis's life in West Belfast in
the 1920s and 1930s. Magennis escaped Belfast's poverty by joining the Royal
Navy in 1935. The middle part of the book is packed with adventure and
history of war at sea, and finishes with Magennis winning the Victoria Cross
in 1945. The closing chapters bring the reader back to the reality of his
return to Belfast where the political and religious problems had not
changed. He was an embarrassment to the Unionist establishment and unwanted
by his fellow Catholics. Forced to leave the city, Magennis went to England
where he was simply accepted as a war hero. Always a quiet man who never
sought glory, he died in obscurity in 1986.
Paul Hammond
Errol, you were asking for it, in words which Pat has just
requoted to us.
The fact that he took you up on your challenge is clear
for all to see.
It's no use whinging to us now, when the outcome you
predicted did not take place.
Don't make big-boy threats if you are just a little
boy who can't take the consequences when the
results of your actions and words come home to roost.
Paul
Paul Hammond
Well, Cal, you'd hear "feck" all the time, as along with
"drink" and "girls" it is one of Father Jack's favourite
words.
"Ponce" isn't very Irish, and isn't very Father Ted. "Shite"
could well be heard in Ireland, but again is not very
Father Ted.
(My favourite is the one with Mrs Doyle et al learning
all the football chants - actually, that gets
pretty close "You're shit, arrgh" chanted in unison
by 20 Mrs Doyle clones is a real ROTFLMHO moment
for me)
Paul
Cal E. Rollins
on the Shrine of the Bab a few years back? I knew the man who put in
the original lighting for the Shrine and who was there when 'Abdu'l-Baha
died. He photographed Him in death, but the Guardian didn't want the
pictures to come out, according to him. --Cal
Dermod Ryder
> As there was more demand (on the naval magazine market) for my book
> "Magennis VC" I have just had another 500 books printed. It was
first
> Published by History Ireland LTD Dublin So if anyone is interested
in a
> signed copy of this book please contact me by private e/mail or read
the
> following advertisment I have in the Navy News magazine below.
>
> Magennis VC: Signed copy of 224 page + 60 photographs biography of
W.W.2
> Victoria Cross winner L/seaman James Magennis send (11.95 sterling
/ 20 US
> dollars inc P&P) to George Fleming 545a Lisburn Road Belfast BT9 7GQ
> Northern Ireland. tele 02890 664629
>
> The first edition was launched in the Submarine Museum in Gosport
Hants and
> three other museums in England and the Belfast City Hall in 1998.
Anybody who was in the slightest doubt that Splashy was a prat must
surely now realise that he is one.
Dermod Ryder
"Paul Hammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.0305...@posting.google.com...
> Errol, you were asking for it, in words which Pat has just
> requoted to us.
>
> The fact that he took you up on your challenge is clear
> for all to see.
>
> It's no use whinging to us now, when the outcome you
> predicted did not take place.
>
> Don't make big-boy threats if you are just a little
> boy who can't take the consequences when the
> results of your actions and words come home to roost.
Maybe Starr will pick up on this - yet another post her soulmate
didn't answer.
Dermod.