OT: A Google funny.....
Andy Hewitt
Go to Google, and type 'french military victories' into the search box,
and then hit the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button.
It made me giggle for a while anyway.
--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>
Woody
> This is shamelessly nicked from my MIL, who was passed it on by my BIL.
>
> Go to Google, and type 'french military victories' into the search box,
> and then hit the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button.
>
> It made me giggle for a while anyway.
Coo - it takes a while for news to get to your end of the world!
--
Woody
Andy Hewitt
Well, I had a feeling it might be like that, but what the hell...
Dave
use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote:
Presumably everyone knows what I found out in the Guardian gossip column
the other day as well, but ....
Ask for directions from London to New York in Google Maps ...
--
Dave
Da...@zizek.demon.co.uk
http://s13a.math.aca.mmu.ac.uk
Peter Ceresole
> Presumably everyone knows what I found out in the Guardian gossip column
> the other day as well, but ....
>
> Ask for directions from London to New York in Google Maps ...
It's also in this week's New Scientist, but they say it's directions
from anywhere in the USA to London- in fact it works in both directions.
--
Peter
David
Hewitt <wildrov...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> This is shamelessly nicked from my MIL, who was passed it on by my
> BIL.
> Go to Google, and type 'french military victories' into the search
> box, and then hit the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button.
> It made me giggle for a while anyway.
Made my day as well!
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
Andy Hewitt
Yes, I just tried it too. In fact there are a few places that have the
same names in the US, and Google seems to want to send you there, rather
than the UK destination.
Peter Ceresole
> Yes, I just tried it too. In fact there are a few places that have the
> same names in the US, and Google seems to want to send you there, rather
> than the UK destination.
When entering an address into Google, I reckon you always have to end it
with the country, as in 'London, UK'. For American addresses it needs
the state, as in 'Bozeman, MT'. Once it recognises the state
description, it assumes it's a US address, which is reasonable enough.
My main problem is in remembering the proper state suffixes; I suppose
MT is fine for Montana (as MO is Missouri) but Maryland is (I think) MD,
not MA, which may be Massachusetts. Possibly. Maybe. However, it's no
worse than the English counties.
--
Peter
J. J. Lodder
> In article <1hxm12m.dueokb10zpokcN%wildrov...@googlemail.com>, Andy
> Hewitt <wildrov...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > This is shamelessly nicked from my MIL, who was passed it on by my
> > BIL.
>
> > Go to Google, and type 'french military victories' into the search
> > box, and then hit the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button.
>
> > It made me giggle for a while anyway.
>
> Made my day as well!
How many victories did the Brits score in Iraq?
Jan
--
"Ils sont fous, les Americains."
Andy Hewitt
I actually selected the destination from the sidebar list, but it still
ended up in the US.
Peter Ceresole
> > > Go to Google, and type 'french military victories' into the search
> > > box, and then hit the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button.
> >
> > > It made me giggle for a while anyway.
> >
> > Made my day as well!
>
> How many victories did the Brits score in Iraq?
Leave it, Jan. It's just a lame Yank joke. They, of course, are
celebrating their own victories in Vietnam, Beirut, and their continuing
victorious campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Job Done, Boys!
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
> I actually selected the destination from the sidebar list, but it still
> ended up in the US.
Hmmmmm. Just 'London, UK' here. Went straight there. Via Baltimore, of
course, walking along the pier, swimming the Atlantic to France and
driving up the M20, but it was the right London.
--
Peter
Woody
Ahh, I wondered what people meant as I put in New York to London, uk and
it showed the directions fine. As long as fine is a ferry
--
Woody
Steve Firth
> Go to Google, and type 'french military victories' into the search box,
> and then hit the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button.
Try "The Complete Military History of France" and then hot the "I'm
Feeling Lucky" button.
Steve Firth
> Ask for directions from London to New York in Google Maps ...
Even better if you ask for Cork to New York, IMO.
Peter Lee
>
> Ahh, I wondered what people meant as I put in New York to London, uk and
> it showed the directions fine. As long as fine is a ferry
Ha - Ferry!
It told me to swim!
Peter
--
This address is never read; use
peterattheleesdotukdotnet
J. J. Lodder
The trouble with the Americans that they have always had it
relatively easy.
They have never been in a really bad war,
and have no idea what it is like.
Losses like the Brits took on a single day at the Somme,
or the French at Verdun would make them collapse immediately.
The worst that ever happened to them was their own civil war.
Best,
Jan
Peter Ceresole
> Ahh, I wondered what people meant as I put in New York to London, uk and
> it showed the directions fine. As long as fine is a ferry
Well the ferry does beat swimming the Atlantic.
20. Take exit 24 A-B-C on the left toward I-93 N/Concord NH/S
Station/I-93 S/Quincy 0.4 mi 1 min
21. Merge onto Atlantic Ave 0.8 mi 3 mins
22. Turn right at Central St 0.1 mi
23. Turn right at Long Wharf 0.1 mi
24. Swim across the Atlantic Ocean 3,462 mi 29 days 0 hours
29 days to swim the Atlantic. The guys at Google really *are* stronger
than the rest of us.
--
Peter
Andy Hewitt
I have this feeling that clicking on the 'alternative' suggestion by
Google in the OP would bring up that same page ;-)
Mentally Sub-Normal
It is. And if you don't know a state's abbreviation, then <www.
50states.com> will tell you. We have a lot of family in the US, so I
know a few (my mother's cousin and family used to live in Boston,
which is how I know you're right about Massachusetts).
Sarah
Mentally Sub-Normal
Woody
Ahh, ok. Didn't spot that. Strange they didn't come in off the coast of
cornwall then.
--
Woody
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1hxn4uu.1jz...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
Not this crap again. Yes, it's true that British and French casualties in WWI
were extremely high, but... it should be remembered that the Americans,
particularly the Marines, racked up a fairly impressive butcher's bill in
that same war. Especially so given that they weren't there for all that much
of it. And further it should be recalled just who it was who did the heavy
lifting in Europe and who did it in Asia, and in the Pacific. That would be
the Sovs, the Chinese, and the US, respectively. And if you _must_ mention
the American Civil War, try not to use it to cry down American casualty
rates. Those who know about, oh, the 1st Minnesota, the 20th Maine, or the
54th Massachusetts, just to mention three units picked at random, will _know_
that you're full of it.
>
> Best,
>
> Jan
>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Peter Ceresole
> Those who know about, oh, the 1st Minnesota, the 20th Maine, or the
> 54th Massachusetts, just to mention three units picked at random, will _know_
> that you're full of it.
My objection to these stupid Yank jokes about the French is that they
(the Yanks) have been busy losing wars hand over fist in the past 30
years or so. Almost entirely out of misjudgements about the world and
their own capabilities (Vietnam, Beirut, Iraq). The point is not about
cowardice or unwillingness to bleed, but simply their tremendous
political incompetence.
--
Peter
J. J. Lodder
> Steve Firth <usene...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Andy Hewitt <wildrov...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Go to Google, and type 'french military victories' into the search box,
> > > and then hit the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button.
> >
> > Try "The Complete Military History of France" and then hot the "I'm
> > Feeling Lucky" button.
>
> I have this feeling that clicking on the 'alternative' suggestion by
> Google in the OP would bring up that same page ;-)
Anyway, nice google engineering,
to come up first among a million others,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
You're not supposed to know.
You kill-filed me, remember?
And anyway, I'm not starting any off-topic threads.
I'm just not clique enough.
Jan
--
"Kill files are for the mentally sub-normal."
J. J. Lodder
> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > Those who know about, oh, the 1st Minnesota, the 20th Maine, or the
> > 54th Massachusetts, just to mention three units picked at random, will _know
> > that you're full of it.
>
> My objection to these stupid Yank jokes about the French is that they
> (the Yanks) have been busy losing wars hand over fist in the past 30
> years or so. Almost entirely out of misjudgements about the world and
> their own capabilities (Vietnam, Beirut, Iraq). The point is not about
> cowardice or unwillingness to bleed, but simply their tremendous
> political incompetence.
It is their unwillingness to bleed which makes them lose.
The USA folds up after having suffering relatively insignificant losses.
However, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing.
It is the ability to take unbearable losses
without ousting those responsible or starting a revolution
which is pathological in my eyes.
The US is in a real sense more democratic than the UK ever was,
and it shows in the kind of wars they can fight.
That said, it doesn't fit the Americans
to criticise the French over this.
But let's end on a positive note:
The representative who untroduced the 'freedom fries'
in the House cafetaria apologised about the episode afterwards
in no uncertain terms.
"We went to war without justification.
It should never have happened."
Best,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 07:32:53 -0400, J. J. Lodder wrote
> (in article <1hxn4uu.1jz...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
>
> > Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Go to Google, and type 'french military victories' into the search
> >>>>> box, and then hit the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button.
> >>>>
> >>>>> It made me giggle for a while anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>> Made my day as well!
> >>>
> >>> How many victories did the Brits score in Iraq?
> >>
> >> Leave it, Jan. It's just a lame Yank joke. They, of course, are
> >> celebrating their own victories in Vietnam, Beirut, and their continuing
> >> victorious campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Job Done, Boys!
> >
> > The trouble with the Americans that they have always had it
> > relatively easy.
> > They have never been in a really bad war,
> > and have no idea what it is like.
> > Losses like the Brits took on a single day at the Somme,
> > or the French at Verdun would make them collapse immediately.
> > The worst that ever happened to them was their own civil war.
>
> Not this crap again. Yes, it's true that British and French casualties in WWI
> were extremely high, but... it should be remembered that the Americans,
> particularly the Marines, racked up a fairly impressive butcher's bill in
> that same war.
Nonsense. Their losses were relatively insignificant.
For comparison you should realise that the Brits and French
lost nearly a whole generation of youths.
> Especially so given that they weren't there for all that much
> of it. And further it should be recalled just who it was who did the heavy
> lifting in Europe and who did it in Asia, and in the Pacific. That would be
> the Sovs, the Chinese, and the US, respectively. And if you _must_ mention
> the American Civil War, try not to use it to cry down American casualty
> rates.
The civil war was a bad one.
It presaged what modern warfare was going to be like,
but as yet it was merely a first excercise.
> Those who know about, oh, the 1st Minnesota, the 20th Maine, or the
> 54th Massachusetts, just to mention three units picked at random, will _know_
> that you're full of it.
The Americans in WW II lost more to traffic accidents
than to enemy action.
A joke current at the time
referred to 'Mr Hitler's secret weapon'...
the jeep.
And for the rest,
when Americans try to measure themselves against the French
they get the contempt they deserve.
If you don't want that, behave,
Jan
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1hxnoio.1v36o0342ulk4N%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>):
> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> Those who know about, oh, the 1st Minnesota, the 20th Maine, or the
>> 54th Massachusetts, just to mention three units picked at random, will
>> _know_
>> that you're full of it.
>
> My objection to these stupid Yank jokes about the French is that they
> (the Yanks) have been busy losing wars hand over fist in the past 30
> years or so. Almost entirely out of misjudgements about the world and
> their own capabilities (Vietnam, Beirut, Iraq).
They won ever company-size or larger battle in Vietnam. They lost the war at
home. They fucked up big time in Beirut, and look like doing the same again
in Iraq. Part of it _is_ because some sections of the American public (and,
therefore, some sections of the American political structure) who are vastly
overly sensitive to casualties. The _troops_ who do the fighting are still,
for the most part, the kind of troops who will do what the 1st Minnesota did,
and continue to attack despite 81% casualties. Or what the torpedo bomber
crews at Midway did. Or the little ships at Samar... if they were allowed to
do what was necessary to achieve victory.
> The point is not about
> cowardice or unwillingness to bleed, but simply their tremendous
> political incompetence.
>
The striking thing about the present American administration is that it has
placed itself into a position where not merely a French government, but
_Jacques bleeding Chirac_ can lecture it about its overweening arrogance...
and be perfectly correct. Jesus bloody wept.
David Kennedy
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:19:25 -0400, Peter Ceresole wrote
> (in article <1hxnoio.1v36o0342ulk4N%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>):
>
>> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>> Those who know about, oh, the 1st Minnesota, the 20th Maine, or the
>>> 54th Massachusetts, just to mention three units picked at random, will
>>> _know_
>>> that you're full of it.
>> My objection to these stupid Yank jokes about the French is that they
>> (the Yanks) have been busy losing wars hand over fist in the past 30
>> years or so. Almost entirely out of misjudgements about the world and
>> their own capabilities (Vietnam, Beirut, Iraq).
>
> They won ever company-size or larger battle in Vietnam. They lost the war at
> home.
Are you serious ?
> They fucked up big time in Beirut, and look like doing the same again
> in Iraq. Part of it _is_ because some sections of the American public (and,
> therefore, some sections of the American political structure) who are vastly
> overly sensitive to casualties. The _troops_ who do the fighting are still,
> for the most part, the kind of troops who will do what the 1st Minnesota did,
> and continue to attack despite 81% casualties. Or what the torpedo bomber
> crews at Midway did. Or the little ships at Samar... if they were allowed to
> do what was necessary to achieve victory.
If they'd had a plan for what to do after they had invaded/got rid of
Saddam then they might have been in with a chance. Now, well, it's up
hill all the way. Same with Afghanistan, the British spent years there
then the USSR threw in everything they had - and behind closed doors so
there were no charges of human rights violations - and still got nowhere
>
>> The point is not about
>> cowardice or unwillingness to bleed, but simply their tremendous
>> political incompetence.
>>
>
> The striking thing about the present American administration is that it has
> placed itself into a position where not merely a French government, but
> _Jacques bleeding Chirac_ can lecture it about its overweening arrogance...
> and be perfectly correct. Jesus bloody wept.
>
As was said, politically they are incredibly naive. They seem to feel
that everyone has a duty to love them. This simply isn't true and, if
you keep telling people how grateful they should be, never likely to be
true.
--
David Kennedy
J. J. Lodder
<davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invalid
> wrote:
> On 5/5/07 21:37, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:19:25 -0400, Peter Ceresole wrote
> > (in article <1hxnoio.1v36o0342ulk4N%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>):
> >
> >> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Those who know about, oh, the 1st Minnesota, the 20th Maine, or the
> >>> 54th Massachusetts, just to mention three units picked at random, will
> >>> _know_
> >>> that you're full of it.
> >> My objection to these stupid Yank jokes about the French is that they
> >> (the Yanks) have been busy losing wars hand over fist in the past 30
> >> years or so. Almost entirely out of misjudgements about the world and
> >> their own capabilities (Vietnam, Beirut, Iraq).
> >
> > They won ever company-size or larger battle in Vietnam. They lost the
> > war at home.
>
> Are you serious ?
Seems so.
It's the American equivalent of the 'stab in the back' legend.
And like in Germany, it leads to no good,
Jan
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <wildrov...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Steve Firth <usene...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Andy Hewitt <wildrov...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Go to Google, and type 'french military victories' into the search box,
> > > > and then hit the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button.
> > >
> > > Try "The Complete Military History of France" and then hot the "I'm
> > > Feeling Lucky" button.
> >
> > I have this feeling that clicking on the 'alternative' suggestion by
> > Google in the OP would bring up that same page ;-)
>
> Anyway, nice google engineering,
> to come up first among a million others,
Jan mate, if you have a problem with the subject matter, firstly
remember that is *is* a UK group, so is likely to be localised in terms
of discussions. It was also quite clearly marked OT: as well, so was
obviously not going to include any Mac related parts to it either.
Not only that, but we can't do anything about the fact of the matter
either, so don't go around shooting messengers.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1hxnwxx.kny...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
> David Kennedy
> <davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invalid
>> wrote:
>
>> On 5/5/07 21:37, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:19:25 -0400, Peter Ceresole wrote
>>> (in article <1hxnoio.1v36o0342ulk4N%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>):
>>>
>>>> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Those who know about, oh, the 1st Minnesota, the 20th Maine, or the
>>>>> 54th Massachusetts, just to mention three units picked at random, will
>>>>> _know_
>>>>> that you're full of it.
>>>> My objection to these stupid Yank jokes about the French is that they
>>>> (the Yanks) have been busy losing wars hand over fist in the past 30
>>>> years or so. Almost entirely out of misjudgements about the world and
>>>> their own capabilities (Vietnam, Beirut, Iraq).
>>>
>>> They won ever company-size or larger battle in Vietnam. They lost the
>>> war at home.
>>
>> Are you serious ?
Quite. The Tet offensive, for example, was a complete military disaster for
the Viet Cong. After Tet 1968, the VC no longer had the troop strength to
carry on the fight in the south; they had been annihilated. Some of the more
cynical commentators have wondered if the North Vietnamese planned it that
way, so as to remove local home-grown forces who might object to some of the
northerner's methods come final victory. In any case, after Tet 1968, the NVA
took over the fight in the south completely, with the VC reduced to a support
role if any at all. When the US was leaving in 1973, the NVA launched a major
armoured offensive which was turned back by the first ever combat use of
helicopter-launched guided anti-tank missiles. (The NVA rebuilt its strength,
and in 1975 came south with the largest armoured assault since Operation
Citadel, and this time there were no Air Cav helos to stop them.) The US Army
and Marines did, indeed, win every major battle. At Khe Sanh, the VC (and the
NVA) tried to do the the USMC what the Viet Minh had done to the REP at Dein
Bein Phu... and failed. At Khe Sanh, the Marines inflicted casualties (not as
per inflated body counts, but as per what the VC and NVA admitted to losing)
on the order of 15:1, mostly killed by artillery and air attack. Reading up
on battles in the war shows a depressing similarity to most of them: a VC or
NVA unit makes a successful ambush of a small American unit; the Americans
call in air and artillery; if the VC or NVA commander is smart, he breaks
contact immediately until the next time. If he's not smart, he feeds
additional troops into the action, where they are slaughtered by superior
American firepower. The Americans won the (large) battles, and lost the war
because the NVA was willing to keep fighting no matter what the casualties...
and because the Americans lost many of the _small_, platoon-size or smaller,
battles. There were a _lot_ of small-unit fights in Vietnam, and there is a
_reason_ why I specified company-size or larger. After a while, small-unit
fights were the main way the NVA fought, as it was abundantly clear to all
involved that the NVA could not possibly win a large-unit fight, the
Americans had too many artillery pieces and too many aircraft. Large-unit
fights were only attemted when the North thought that the US lacked the
political will to fight, such as in 1973; Tricky Dick Nixon disabused them of
that notion with great forcefulness. However, to the NVA, the war was _their_
great struggle, their win at all costs, the way WWII in the Pacific was to
the US. John Kennedy said that the US would bear any burden; Ho Che Minh's
boys walked the walk while LBJ and Nixon merely talked.
>
> Seems so.
> It's the American equivalent of the 'stab in the back' legend.
Unfortunately, it's not a legend.
>
> And like in Germany, it leads to no good,
>
> Jan
--
David Kennedy
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 16:59:35 -0400, J. J. Lodder wrote
> (in article <1hxnwxx.kny...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
>
>> David Kennedy
>> <davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invalid
>>> wrote:
>>> On 5/5/07 21:37, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 5 May 2007 15:19:25 -0400, Peter Ceresole wrote
>>>> (in article <1hxnoio.1v36o0342ulk4N%pe...@cara.demon.co.uk>):
>>>>
>>>>> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Those who know about, oh, the 1st Minnesota, the 20th Maine, or the
>>>>>> 54th Massachusetts, just to mention three units picked at random, will
>>>>>> _know_
>>>>>> that you're full of it.
>>>>> My objection to these stupid Yank jokes about the French is that they
>>>>> (the Yanks) have been busy losing wars hand over fist in the past 30
>>>>> years or so. Almost entirely out of misjudgements about the world and
>>>>> their own capabilities (Vietnam, Beirut, Iraq).
>>>> They won ever company-size or larger battle in Vietnam. They lost the
>>>> war at home.
>>> Are you serious ?
>
> Quite. The Tet offensive, for example, was a complete military disaster for
> boys walked the walk while LBJ and Nixon merely talked.
>
A defeat is a defeat whatever you label it.
D.M. Procida
> They won ever company-size or larger battle in Vietnam. They lost the war at
> home.
Who cares? Argue about it somewhere else. We did this only last week.
It's far too soon for another 200 rounds of military history
willy-waving.
Daniele
J. J. Lodder
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 16:59:35 -0400, J. J. Lodder wrote
> (in article <1hxnwxx.kny...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
[snip irrelevancies]
> > Seems so.
> > It's the American equivalent of the 'stab in the back' legend.
>
> Unfortunately, it's not a legend.
What are you waiting for then?
Scrap the democracy,
get a nice friendly dictatorship,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Andy Hewitt <wildrov...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Steve Firth <usene...@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andy Hewitt <wildrov...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Go to Google, and type 'french military victories' into the search
> > > > > box, and then hit the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button.
> > > >
> > > > Try "The Complete Military History of France" and then hot the "I'm
> > > > Feeling Lucky" button.
> > >
> > > I have this feeling that clicking on the 'alternative' suggestion by
> > > Google in the OP would bring up that same page ;-)
> >
> > Anyway, nice google engineering,
> > to come up first among a million others,
>
> Jan mate, if you have a problem with the subject matter, firstly
> remember that is *is* a UK group, so is likely to be localised in terms
> of discussions. It was also quite clearly marked OT: as well, so was
> obviously not going to include any Mac related parts to it either.
Huh? 'Google engineering' is closest to Mac-relevance
of any remark in this thread,
Jan
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1hxov7l.hk...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
Interesting. As you have no actual facts, you go straight to the insults.
Figures.
Look, man, you might want to read, just for instance
<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_200310/ai_n9337860> which
quotes one Vo Nguyen Giap, a gentleman who's definitely one of the top five
generals of the 20th century, and quite possibly in the top five of all
time... and who just happened to be the man commanding the NVA. So sorry if
the facts do not support your position.
American firepower won the big battles; Vietnamese stubbornness and superior
small-unit tactics won many of the small ones; American lack of political
will lost the war. This is a lesson that even George W Bush, the Chimp In
Chief, can figure out; political will is one thing he has in vast oversupply.
(Brains, now, that would be another thing entirely. Another year and a half
and he's gone, and it can't happen too quickly.)
J. J. Lodder
> On Sun, 6 May 2007 06:26:14 -0400, J. J. Lodder wrote
> (in article <1hxov7l.hk...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
>
> > J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 5 May 2007 16:59:35 -0400, J. J. Lodder wrote
> >> (in article <1hxnwxx.kny...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
> > [snip irrelevancies]
> >>> Seems so.
> >>> It's the American equivalent of the 'stab in the back' legend.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, it's not a legend.
> >
> > What are you waiting for then?
> > Scrap the democracy,
> > get a nice friendly dictatorship,
> >
> > Jan
>
> Interesting. As you have no actual facts, you go straight to the insults.
> Figures.
[snip more drivel about American firepower]
You appear to be unaware of the fact that
'stab in the back legend' is a political keyword,
pointing to unfortunate events,
with even more unfortunate consequences.
When you embrace the legend you must fear the consequences.
Insisting it isn't a legend only makes things worse,
Jan
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1hxp1zg.178...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 May 2007 06:26:14 -0400, J. J. Lodder wrote
>> (in article <1hxov7l.hk...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
>>
>>> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 5 May 2007 16:59:35 -0400, J. J. Lodder wrote
>>>> (in article <1hxnwxx.kny...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
>>> [snip irrelevancies]
>>>>> Seems so.
>>>>> It's the American equivalent of the 'stab in the back' legend.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, it's not a legend.
>>>
>>> What are you waiting for then?
>>> Scrap the democracy,
>>> get a nice friendly dictatorship,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>> Interesting. As you have no actual facts, you go straight to the insults.
>> Figures.
>
> [snip more drivel about American firepower]
So you didn't read General Vo's actual words? Figures.
> You appear to be unaware of the fact that
> 'stab in the back legend' is a political keyword,
What you don't seem to realise is that in _this_ particular case, it's not a
legend. The man who was in command on the other side says as much.
> pointing to unfortunate events,
> with even more unfortunate consequences.
>
> When you embrace the legend you must fear the consequences.
> Insisting it isn't a legend only makes things worse,
Except, of course, when it isn't a legend. You insist on denying objective
facts because they don't fit your beautiful theory.
J. J. Lodder
Losing a war is losing a war.
Inventing tales about it being the fault of democracy
makes it worse,
Jan
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1hxplmf.1az...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>):
The reasons why the war was lost are important, if only to ensure that there
are no future loses of that type.
> Inventing tales about it being the fault of democracy
You still haven't read General Vo's words. Why should I take your opinion
over his?
> makes it worse,
Burying your head in the sand solves nothing. Facts are facts, whether you
like them or not.
Rowland McDonnell
> Andy Hewitt <wildrov...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I just tried it too. In fact there are a few places that have the
> > same names in the US, and Google seems to want to send you there, rather
> > than the UK destination.
>
> When entering an address into Google, I reckon you always have to end it
> with the country, as in 'London, UK'. For American addresses it needs
> the state, as in 'Bozeman, MT'. Once it recognises the state
> description, it assumes it's a US address, which is reasonable enough.
> My main problem is in remembering the proper state suffixes; I suppose
> MT is fine for Montana (as MO is Missouri) but Maryland is (I think) MD,
> not MA, which may be Massachusetts. Possibly. Maybe. However, it's no
> worse than the English counties.
There aren't fifty stupid, pointless, hard-to-remember two letter
abbreviations for English counties: they just have names. There aren't
even fifty English counties.
So you're wrong.
Any of these `look up table' ways of `simplifying' things make life
harder from some points of view - usually the poor sod at the sharp end
trying to make sense out of things.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Rowland McDonnell
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Ahh, I wondered what people meant as I put in New York to London, uk and
> > it showed the directions fine. As long as fine is a ferry
>
> Well the ferry does beat swimming the Atlantic.
>
> 20. Take exit 24 A-B-C on the left toward I-93 N/Concord NH/S
> Station/I-93 S/Quincy 0.4 mi 1 min
> 21. Merge onto Atlantic Ave 0.8 mi 3 mins
> 22. Turn right at Central St 0.1 mi
> 23. Turn right at Long Wharf 0.1 mi
> 24. Swim across the Atlantic Ocean 3,462 mi 29 days 0 hours
>
> 29 days to swim the Atlantic. The guys at Google really *are* stronger
> than the rest of us.
No, they've just got plankton powered neutral buoyancy exoskeltons
developed for long distance swimming. Obviously. Why do all that hard
training when you can use cool technology instead? You gotta Think
Google.
If you ask for Cork to New York, Google first takes you to Wales, then
England, ignores all the New Yorks on this septic island, shuffles you
to France, and *then* directs you across the Atlantic.
David
Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> There aren't fifty stupid, pointless, hard-to-remember two letter
> abbreviations for English counties: they just have names. There
> aren't even fifty English counties.
> So you're wrong.
No, you're wrong.
David, WY (and see my header)
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > There aren't fifty stupid, pointless, hard-to-remember two letter
> > abbreviations for English counties: they just have names. There
> > aren't even fifty English counties.
>
> > So you're wrong.
>
> No, you're wrong.
>
> David, WY (and see my header)
You what?
There is not and never has been a set of official two letter postal
abbreviations for English counties as there is for US states.
So I'm right.
The Royal Mail has even stopped requiring county names at all these days
- post town and postcode is what they need to get mail to the right
sorting office.
btw, which New York are you measuring from? I can't be bothered to
check through 'em all to work out which one would work with the
distances you state to hit an address in West Yorks.
Rowland.
(reared in Middx, which doesn't really exist at all any more)
Peter Ceresole
> There aren't fifty stupid, pointless, hard-to-remember two letter
> abbreviations for English counties: they just have names.
All of which have pointless and unmemorable abbreviations. Like Worcs
for Worcestershire, for god's sake. Nothing that bad in the USA.
--
Peter
David Kennedy
I think they're very typically British. Of course it will be difficult
for a foreigner to appreciate them. That's the whole point.
When you say that there is nothing that bad in the good old US of A I
presume you are restricting your comments to abbreviation's...
Peter Ceresole
<davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invalid
> wrote:
> When you say that there is nothing that bad in the good old US of A I
> presume you are restricting your comments to abbreviation's...
Well that was the subject I was addressing, yes.
--
Peter
Rowland McDonnell
Eh? But if you know about Worcestershire, you can work back to it from
`Worcs' and the information that `Worcs' is a county. The abbreviation
``Wrocs' in the context of `English county' carries a lot more
information than `LA' in the context of US states - to get information
out of `LA', you need a look-up table, whereas you can use `things you
have learnt naturally' to go from Worcs to Worcestershire.
And how does it work in the USA? Okay, let's get down to it and I'll
prove - yes, /prove/, that you're wrong.
Iowa is officially abbreviated IA. Louisiana is LA. Okay, I see a
consistent pattern they're using: first and last letters. Good. So why
is New York NY with this scheme? Hmm. Can't be a consistent pattern,
then. It's arbitrary and confusing and wait! What's this?
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Only one gets to be called MI - can you guess which? Following the
pattern established by Iowa and Louisiana (first and last letters),
you'd expect it to be Missouri or Mississippi - but just to keep things
inconsistent and confusing, Michigan gets MI, while Missouri gets to be
MO and Mississippi gets MS (which could just as easily apply to
Missouri). There's no way of `working back' from the abbreviation to
the original state name in these cases.
I have to say that you're mad: it's very obviously a lot more confusing
in the USA.
The traditional English (i.e., human) method is the best way of doing it
- far better than the stupid (i.e., mindless bureaucratic machinery)
look-up table approach used in the USA.
You can work out any English county name from it's abbreviation - all of
'em (okay, Hants, Northants, and Oxon aren't `instant hits' the first
time you meet 'em). Whereas hardly any of the US state name
abbreviations can be worked back to their original, as I hope I have
shown clearly above.
Your problem, Peter, is that you've got an automatic downer on anything
from these septic isles and tend to assume that it's better abroad
especially if `abroad' is France or the USA, I've noticed.
Rowland McDonnell
And while I'm at it: they're not pointless abbreviations and it's stupid
of you to claim that they are. They were invented because it's a pain
to write county names out in full on letters and envelopes. If they
weren't convenient and useful, they wouldn't have been used.
As it was, because they were convenient and useful - which includes
being memorable despite your opinion - they got used. If they were
useful and memorable, they wouldn't have been used: the proof that they
were useful is that they were in fact used.
Andy Hewitt
> So you're wrong.
>
> Any of these `look up table' ways of `simplifying' things make life
> harder from some points of view - usually the poor sod at the sharp end
> trying to make sense out of things.
I agree, the use of acronyms and abbreviations is one of my pet hates
(up there with Political Correctness and injury claims).
I had to learn over 100 of the damn things just to work on engine
management systems on cars. Even then, if you changed franchise, you had
to learn even more, as every manufacturer often uses different names for
the same device.
Plain English is much easier to understand, and is something that we
already learnt at school.
Woody
> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> >
> > > There aren't fifty stupid, pointless, hard-to-remember two letter
> > > abbreviations for English counties: they just have names.
> >
> > All of which have pointless and unmemorable abbreviations. Like Worcs
> > for Worcestershire, for god's sake. Nothing that bad in the USA.
>
> Eh? But if you know about Worcestershire, you can work back to it from
> `Worcs' and the information that `Worcs' is a county. The abbreviation
> ``Wrocs' in the context of `English county' carries a lot more
> information than `LA' in the context of US states - to get information
> out of `LA', you need a look-up table, whereas you can use `things you
> have learnt naturally' to go from Worcs to Worcestershire.
Things you learn naturally if you know about worcestershire. I asked my
wife what county worcs was, she didn't know.
> And how does it work in the USA? Okay, let's get down to it and I'll
> prove - yes, /prove/, that you're wrong.
No you won't, you will just shout louder.
> Iowa is officially abbreviated IA. Louisiana is LA. Okay, I see a
> consistent pattern they're using: first and last letters. Good. So why
> is New York NY with this scheme?
Because like every other (internal) state with two words in the name, it
is the first letters of each word. Is that so hard to work out?
> It's arbitrary and confusing and wait!
Err, right. If you are 3 or something!
> What's this?
>
> Michigan
> Minnesota
> Mississippi
> Missouri
>
> Only one gets to be called MI - can you guess which? Following the
> pattern established by Iowa and Louisiana (first and last letters),
> you'd expect it to be Missouri or Mississippi - but just to keep things
> inconsistent and confusing, Michigan gets MI, while Missouri gets to be
> MO and Mississippi gets MS (which could just as easily apply to
> Missouri). There's no way of `working back' from the abbreviation to
> the original state name in these cases.
>
> I have to say that you're mad: it's very obviously a lot more confusing
> in the USA.
Well, no it isn't, as you don't leave school in the states without
knowing the name of each state, and its initial.
However, I learned of a new county the other day that i hadn't heard of
in the previous 41 years.
> You can work out any English county name from it's abbreviation - all of
> 'em (okay, Hants, Northants, and Oxon aren't `instant hits' the first
> time you meet 'em). Whereas hardly any of the US state name
> abbreviations can be worked back to their original, as I hope I have
> shown clearly above.
Hardly any? ie, you might get confused with 4?
> Your problem, Peter, is that you've got an automatic downer on anything
> from these septic isles and tend to assume that it's better abroad
> especially if `abroad' is France or the USA, I've noticed.
And your problem appears to be the oposite.
--
Woody
Woody
Depending on who you are. Plain English is far from clear, which is why
in the industry I am in (which is also related to manuals), we have to
use simplified english
--
Woody
Andy Hewitt
> > I had to learn over 100 of the damn things just to work on engine
> > management systems on cars. Even then, if you changed franchise, you had
> > to learn even more, as every manufacturer often uses different names for
> > the same device.
> >
> > Plain English is much easier to understand, and is something that we
> > already learnt at school.
>
> Depending on who you are. Plain English is far from clear, which is why
> in the industry I am in (which is also related to manuals), we have to
> use simplified english
It's not so bad if you can use a single naming convention, but when
different terms are used to describe the same object, that's when it
gets confusing.
David
<1hxr9b3.hrxnt5125h6l2N%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet>, Rowland
McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> David <nos...@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> >
> > > There aren't fifty stupid, pointless, hard-to-remember two letter
> > > abbreviations for English counties: they just have names. There
> > > aren't even fifty English counties.
> >
> > > So you're wrong.
> >
> > No, you're wrong.
> >
> > David, WY (and see my header)
> You what?
> There is not and never has been a set of official two letter postal
> abbreviations for English counties as there is for US states.
Ah, you didn't say "official".
> So I'm right.
So you're wrong. Nyah!
> The Royal Mail has even stopped requiring county names at all these
> days - post town and postcode is what they need to get mail to the
> right sorting office.
> btw, which New York are you measuring from? I can't be bothered to
> check through 'em all to work out which one would work with the
> distances you state to hit an address in West Yorks.
Who said anything about New York?
Tim Streater
David Kennedy
<davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invali
d> wrote:
> On 7/5/07 18:33, Peter Ceresole wrote:
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> >
> >> There aren't fifty stupid, pointless, hard-to-remember two letter
> >> abbreviations for English counties: they just have names.
> >
> > All of which have pointless and unmemorable abbreviations. Like Worcs
> > for Worcestershire, for god's sake. Nothing that bad in the USA.
>
> I think they're very typically British. Of course it will be difficult
> for a foreigner to appreciate them. That's the whole point.
I don't give a monkey's whether its hard for the foreigners or not.
We're not doing it for them, we're doing it for ourselves.
David Kennedy
>
> Who said anything about New York?
>
You did.
Rowland McDonnell
Plain English is clear language by definition. If it's not clear, it's
not plain English.
But English is also an imprecise language, which is why every technical
field has its necessary jargon - extensions to, not simplifications of,
the basic language.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > >
> > > > There aren't fifty stupid, pointless, hard-to-remember two letter
> > > > abbreviations for English counties: they just have names.
> > >
> > > All of which have pointless and unmemorable abbreviations. Like Worcs
> > > for Worcestershire, for god's sake. Nothing that bad in the USA.
> >
> > Eh? But if you know about Worcestershire, you can work back to it from
> > `Worcs' and the information that `Worcs' is a county. The abbreviation
> > ``Wrocs' in the context of `English county' carries a lot more
> > information than `LA' in the context of US states - to get information
> > out of `LA', you need a look-up table, whereas you can use `things you
> > have learnt naturally' to go from Worcs to Worcestershire.
>
> Things you learn naturally if you know about worcestershire. I asked my
> wife what county worcs was, she didn't know.
Well, yes, obviously. If you've not heard of a place, you won't
recognise the name when you see it written down. I was working on the
basis of people knowing the names of counties, you know? As you assume
that all school leavers in the USA know all the names of all the state
and their abbreviations (which they don't, but never mind), I assumed
that you'd not be expecting to figure out any abbreviation if you didn't
know the original source word/name.
Now, I'm saying that the British way is less confusing than the US way
because you can work back from Brit abbreviations to the original name
which you can't do with the US method. You claim that the US way is
better because they make sure that everyone learns it.
You're not really talking about what I'm talking about, are you?
[snip]
> > I have to say that you're mad: it's very obviously a lot more confusing
> > in the USA.
>
> Well, no it isn't, as you don't leave school in the states without
> knowing the name of each state, and its initial.
Plenty of people do. I don't care how it's supposed to work, and I
don't care how hard they try, there are a lot of folk who fail to learn
at school. And of those who do learn, a certain percentage will forget.
> However, I learned of a new county the other day that i hadn't heard of
> in the previous 41 years.
Umm. So you're ignorant, yes? That's a separate issue to the
abbreviation lark, innit?
[snip]
> > Your problem, Peter, is that you've got an automatic downer on anything
> > from these septic isles and tend to assume that it's better abroad
> > especially if `abroad' is France or the USA, I've noticed.
>
> And your problem appears to be the oposite.
Eh? Are you mad? Yes, you are. Have you not heard me on the subject
of railways? Ever wondered why I ride a Honda and not a BSA? And I'd
rather the loathesome Nicholas Sarkozy running these septic isles than
that bloody Blair creature... Mind you, there are times when I think a
zombie Richard Nixon might be an improvement on dear Tone.
Rowland McDonnell
> In article
> <1hxr9b3.hrxnt5125h6l2N%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet>, Rowland
> McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > David <nos...@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > >
> > > > There aren't fifty stupid, pointless, hard-to-remember two letter
> > > > abbreviations for English counties: they just have names. There
> > > > aren't even fifty English counties.
> > >
> > > > So you're wrong.
> > >
> > > No, you're wrong.
> > >
> > > David, WY (and see my header)
>
> > You what?
>
> > There is not and never has been a set of official two letter postal
> > abbreviations for English counties as there is for US states.
>
> Ah, you didn't say "official".
<shrug> So?
> > So I'm right.
>
> So you're wrong. Nyah!
Am I? Okay, I said that there aren't fifty <characterisation deleted>
two letter abbreviations for English counties.
Show me fifty two letter abbreviations for English counties - I don't
care what standard you follow, but it's got to be something that's `an
accepted standard' by some reasonable defintion.
Hint: you'll have a tricky job. There aren't fifty English counties,
and most of them haven't got two letter abbreviations.
> > The Royal Mail has even stopped requiring county names at all these
> > days - post town and postcode is what they need to get mail to the
> > right sorting office.
>
> > btw, which New York are you measuring from? I can't be bothered to
> > check through 'em all to work out which one would work with the
> > distances you state to hit an address in West Yorks.
>
> Who said anything about New York?
I was guessing that you were talking about one of the various hamlets
called New York with your reference to N.Y. - but it had to be just a
guess, because two letter abbreviations are utterly useless outside of a
carefully defined context.
Rowland.
Woody
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> Umm. So you're ignorant, yes? That's a separate issue to the
> abbreviation lark, innit?
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Your problem, Peter, is that you've got an automatic downer on anything
> > > from these septic isles and tend to assume that it's better abroad
> > > especially if `abroad' is France or the USA, I've noticed.
> >
> > And your problem appears to be the oposite.
>
> Eh? Are you mad? Yes, you are.
Sorry - my mistake. I forgot that if people disagree with you you go
straight to insults.
Carry on, as you were, I will find a different conversation.
--
Woody
Woody
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Andy Hewitt <wildrov...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So you're wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Any of these `look up table' ways of `simplifying' things make life
> > > > harder from some points of view - usually the poor sod at the sharp end
> > > > trying to make sense out of things.
> > >
> > > I agree, the use of acronyms and abbreviations is one of my pet hates
> > > (up there with Political Correctness and injury claims).
> > >
> > > I had to learn over 100 of the damn things just to work on engine
> > > management systems on cars. Even then, if you changed franchise, you had
> > > to learn even more, as every manufacturer often uses different names for
> > > the same device.
> > >
> > > Plain English is much easier to understand, and is something that we
> > > already learnt at school.
> >
> > Depending on who you are. Plain English is far from clear, which is why
> > in the industry I am in (which is also related to manuals), we have to
> > use simplified english
>
> Plain English is clear language by definition. If it's not clear, it's
> not plain English.
No it isn't. Plain english can be unclear, it is just not designed to
confuse. that is why there is a simplified english
> But English is also an imprecise language, which is why every technical
> field has its necessary jargon - extensions to, not simplifications of,
> the basic language.
And why my technical field has simplified english manuals of the words
in english you are allowed to use.
--
Woody
Chris Ridd
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
>> But English is also an imprecise language, which is why every technical
>> field has its necessary jargon - extensions to, not simplifications of,
>> the basic language.
>
> And why my technical field has simplified english manuals of the words
> in english you are allowed to use.
IIRC Air Traffic Control uses a simplified form of English.
Cheers,
Chris
David
David Kennedy
<davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invalid> wrote:
> On 7/5/07 20:22, David wrote:
> >
> > Who said anything about New York?
> >
> You did.
When? Where?
David
<1hxru35.1ih1q3khd47xeN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet>, Rowland
> <shrug> So?
But some of them do have well recognised two-letter abbreviations; and
as you said "There aren't fifty stupid, pointless, hard-to-remember two
letter abbreviations for English counties: they just have names", the
fact of there being at least one English county with a well recognised
two-letter abbreviation falsifies your statement.
Not tricky at all.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > David <nos...@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> > Am I? Okay, I said that there aren't fifty <characterisation
> > deleted> two letter abbreviations for English counties.
>
> > Show me fifty two letter abbreviations for English counties - I don't
> > care what standard you follow, but it's got to be something that's
> > `an accepted standard' by some reasonable defintion.
>
> > Hint: you'll have a tricky job. There aren't fifty English counties,
> > and most of them haven't got two letter abbreviations.
>
> But some of them do have well recognised two-letter abbreviations;
But they do not: this is a ludicrous claim. Not just false, but
ridiculously so.
You might as well claim that Tony Blair has a well recognised chimpanzee
as a pet[1].
> and
> as you said "There aren't fifty stupid, pointless, hard-to-remember two
> letter abbreviations for English counties: they just have names", the
> fact of there being at least one English county with a well recognised
> two-letter abbreviation falsifies your statement.
No it doesn't. If you read what I wrote, you will see that my claim is:
`There aren't fifty stupid, pointless, hard-to-remember two letter
abbreviations for English counties'
Have you understood that? Should I type more slowly so you can
understand me more easily, or what?
(Yes, I put `: they just have names' by way of emphasis. Don't be
silly about that, eh?)
> Not tricky at all.
Don't be daft. There are not 50 two letter abbreviations for English
counties. Until you come up with 50 two letter abbreviations for
English counties, I'm right.
I claim that `WY' would NOT be recognized as `West Yorkshire' even by as
much as 10% of the population of the UK and is therefore not a widely
recoginised abbreviation as has been falsely claimed. I claim - for the
first time in this thread - that there are in fact no widely accepted
two letter abbreviations for ANY English counties.
And anyway, you'd need multiple counties with two letter abbreviations
to disprove my point.
I had never met `WY' used for `West Yorks' before I saw it recently in
this newsgroup - never, in 40 years living in the UK. WY certainly
doesn't count as a recognizable county name in my book.
Rowland.
[1] Gospel according to Steve Bell: the chimp's actually Bliar's keeper
as far as I can tell..
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Umm. So you're ignorant, yes? That's a separate issue to the
> > abbreviation lark, innit?
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Your problem, Peter, is that you've got an automatic downer on anything
> > > > from these septic isles and tend to assume that it's better abroad
> > > > especially if `abroad' is France or the USA, I've noticed.
> > >
> > > And your problem appears to be the oposite.
> >
> > Eh? Are you mad? Yes, you are.
>
> Sorry - my mistake. I forgot that if people disagree with you you go
> straight to insults.
<puzzled> In what way is that insulting? I'm certainly being very much
less rude and insulting than you were to me in the post I was replying
to.
If my carefully jocular response to your gratuitously /deeply/ insulting
post directed at me is going to get that sort of reaction - well, get
off your high bloody horse, sonny boy.
Why so damned touchy?
I don't understand you people: you take pleasure in dishing out deeply
insulting shit to others but if someone should `needle' you back a
little, you get all `offended' and hoity-toity about it.
Tsk.
Rowland.
[snip]
Rowland McDonnell
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > Plain English is clear language by definition. If it's not clear, it's
> > not plain English.
>
> No it isn't. Plain english can be unclear, it is just not designed to
> confuse. that is why there is a simplified english
Umm. But you have ignored me: plain english has to be clear and if it's
not clear, it's not plain. That's just by definition.
> > But English is also an imprecise language, which is why every technical
> > field has its necessary jargon - extensions to, not simplifications of,
> > the basic language.
>
> And why my technical field has simplified english manuals of the words
> in english you are allowed to use.
What's that, then?
Sara Kirk
<1hxswdz.1oixtc04a5ggfN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet>,
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> I claim - for the
> first time in this thread - that there are in fact no widely accepted
> two letter abbreviations for ANY English counties.
Surrey is very commonly written as 'SY'. I've been seeing that on
envelopes for years.
--
Sara
The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies!
zoara
> If my carefully jocular response to your gratuitously /deeply/ insulting
> post directed at me is going to get that sort of reaction - well, get
> off your high bloody horse, sonny boy.
Woody was being insulting? I missed that.
Anyway, seeing as we seem to have a Typical Usenet Misunderstanding going
on here, can I buy you both a pint and forget about this? Because I don't
think it's going to go anywhere, and alcohol solves *everything*.
-zoara-
--
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Rowland McDonnell
> (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> > I claim - for the
> > first time in this thread - that there are in fact no widely accepted
> > two letter abbreviations for ANY English counties.
>
> Surrey is very commonly written as 'SY'. I've been seeing that on
> envelopes for years.
I used to live not far from Surrey and I've never ever seen that
abbreviation. I don't believe it's very common. Surrey's one of the
counties that never had a pukka abbreviation because the name's short
enough anyway.
There aren't any widely accepted two letter abbreviations for any
English counties, is my claim, and I stand by it.
Rowland.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
> > If my carefully jocular response to your gratuitously /deeply/ insulting
> > post directed at me is going to get that sort of reaction - well, get
> > off your high bloody horse, sonny boy.
>
> Woody was being insulting? I missed that.
<shrug> I don't see any insult from me, either.
But think how an anarchist feels about being accused of holding
nationalist sentiments - just think about that for a minute. It's what
he did to me.
> Anyway, seeing as we seem to have a Typical Usenet Misunderstanding going
> on here, can I buy you both a pint and forget about this? Because I don't
> think it's going to go anywhere, and alcohol solves *everything*.
Only if you put the dose up to a fatal level in my case.
Rowland.
Tim Streater
<1hxswdz.1oixtc04a5ggfN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet>,
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
[snip]
> I claim that `WY' would NOT be recognized as `West Yorkshire' even by as
> much as 10% of the population of the UK and is therefore not a widely
> recoginised abbreviation as has been falsely claimed.
Quite right.
> I claim - for the
> first time in this thread - that there are in fact no widely accepted
> two letter abbreviations for ANY English counties.
Also quite right. And assertions to the contrary are unadulterated
balderdash.
> And anyway, you'd need multiple counties with two letter abbreviations
> to disprove my point.
>
> I had never met `WY' used for `West Yorks' before I saw it recently in
> this newsgroup - never, in 40 years living in the UK. WY certainly
> doesn't count as a recognizable county name in my book.
I perhaps see the odd abbreviation. But it's so rare as to be completely
unmemorable.
John DoH
<1hxszc4.xzphcp1mauthzN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet>,
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> >
> > > If my carefully jocular response to your gratuitously /deeply/ insulting
> > > post directed at me is going to get that sort of reaction - well, get
> > > off your high bloody horse, sonny boy.
> >
> > Woody was being insulting? I missed that.
>
> <shrug> I don't see any insult from me, either.
>
> But think how an anarchist feels about being accused of holding
> nationalist sentiments - just think about that for a minute. It's what
> he did to me.
>
> > Anyway, seeing as we seem to have a Typical Usenet Misunderstanding going
> > on here, can I buy you both a pint and forget about this? Because I don't
> > think it's going to go anywhere, and alcohol solves *everything*.
>
> Only if you put the dose up to a fatal level in my case.
The whip-round for that will probably pay off a small country's national
debt :-)
David
<1hxswdz.1oixtc04a5ggfN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet>, Rowland
McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> David <nos...@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > > David <nos...@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Am I? Okay, I said that there aren't fifty <characterisation
> > > deleted> two letter abbreviations for English counties.
> >
> > > Show me fifty two letter abbreviations for English counties - I
> > > don't care what standard you follow, but it's got to be something
> > > that's `an accepted standard' by some reasonable defintion.
> >
> > > Hint: you'll have a tricky job. There aren't fifty English
> > > counties, and most of them haven't got two letter abbreviations.
> >
> > But some of them do have well recognised two-letter abbreviations;
> But they do not: this is a ludicrous claim. Not just false, but
> ridiculously so.
> You might as well claim that Tony Blair has a well recognised
> chimpanzee as a pet[1].
Now you've gone from the ridiculous to the sublime.
> > and as you said "There aren't fifty stupid, pointless,
> > hard-to-remember two letter abbreviations for English counties:
> > they just have names", the fact of there being at least one English
> > county with a well recognised two-letter abbreviation falsifies
> > your statement.
> No it doesn't. If you read what I wrote, you will see that my claim
> is:
> `There aren't fifty stupid, pointless, hard-to-remember two letter
> abbreviations for English counties'
I read what you wrote; I also copied what you wrote.
> Have you understood that? Should I type more slowly so you can
> understand me more easily, or what?
> (Yes, I put `: they just have names' by way of emphasis. Don't be
> silly about that, eh?)
That was part of what you wrote and it simply isn't true.
> > Not tricky at all.
> Don't be daft. There are not 50 two letter abbreviations for English
> counties. Until you come up with 50 two letter abbreviations for
> English counties, I'm right.
Not at all. Part of what you wrote might well be true but the whole of
what you wrote is easily falsified.
> I claim that `WY' would NOT be recognized as `West Yorkshire' even by
> as much as 10% of the population of the UK and is therefore not a
> widely recoginised abbreviation as has been falsely claimed. I claim
> - for the first time in this thread - that there are in fact no
> widely accepted two letter abbreviations for ANY English counties.
Since a bit more than 10% of the population live in or just on the
borders of Yorkshire and are very much used to abbreviations such as
WY, SY, NY (or historically, even, WR, ER, NR), I think very much that
10% or more would recognise the abbreviation in context.
> And anyway, you'd need multiple counties with two letter
> abbreviations to disprove my point.
No, just one. You really should be more careful in what you write if
it's going to upset you so much when anyone contradicts you with facts.
> I had never met `WY' used for `West Yorks' before I saw it recently
> in this newsgroup - never, in 40 years living in the UK. WY
> certainly doesn't count as a recognizable county name in my book.
I think you should have written, "There aren't fifty stupid, pointless,
hard-to-remember two letter abbreviations for English counties /known
to me/ : they just have names." Saved us all a lot of bother.
> Rowland.
> [1] Gospel according to Steve Bell: the chimp's actually Bliar's
> keeper as far as I can tell..
--
zoara
> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>
>>> If my carefully jocular response to your gratuitously /deeply/ insulting
>>> post directed at me is going to get that sort of reaction - well, get
>>> off your high bloody horse, sonny boy.
>>
>> Woody was being insulting? I missed that.
>
> <shrug> I don't see any insult from me, either.
Neither do I, which is why I brought up the Typical Usenet
Misunderstanding...
> But think how an anarchist feels about being accused of holding
> nationalist sentiments - just think about that for a minute. It's what
> he did to me.
Righto. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way.
>> Anyway, seeing as we seem to have a Typical Usenet Misunderstanding going
>> on here, can I buy you both a pint and forget about this? Because I don't
>> think it's going to go anywhere, and alcohol solves *everything*.
>
> Only if you put the dose up to a fatal level in my case.
*jangles change* We-ell... I can stretch to three pints of bitter...
-zoara-
--
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Jaimie Vandenbergh
>On Tue, 8 May 2007 16:35:07 +0100, Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
>> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>>
>>>> If my carefully jocular response to your gratuitously /deeply/ insulting
>>>> post directed at me is going to get that sort of reaction - well, get
>>>> off your high bloody horse, sonny boy.
>>>
>>> Woody was being insulting? I missed that.
>>
>> <shrug> I don't see any insult from me, either.
>
>Neither do I, which is why I brought up the Typical Usenet
>Misunderstanding...
*rummages in sigfile* Aha!
J
--
"So overall I don't think either you or I got it right, which is
still doing better than average for a Usenet exchange"
-- J Nebus, rasfw
Woody
Woody
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> >
> > > Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Umm. So you're ignorant, yes? That's a separate issue to the
> > > abbreviation lark, innit?
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > Your problem, Peter, is that you've got an automatic downer on
> > > > > anything from these septic isles and tend to assume that it's
> > > > > better abroad especially if `abroad' is France or the USA, I've
> > > > > noticed.
> > > >
> > > > And your problem appears to be the oposite.
> > >
> > > Eh? Are you mad? Yes, you are.
> >
> > Sorry - my mistake. I forgot that if people disagree with you you go
> > straight to insults.
>
> <puzzled> In what way is that insulting?
Calling someone mad?
> I'm certainly being very much
> less rude and insulting than you were to me in the post I was replying
> to.
Is it? In what way?
> If my carefully jocular response to your gratuitously /deeply/ insulting
> post directed at me is going to get that sort of reaction - well, get
> off your high bloody horse, sonny boy.
>
> Why so damned touchy?
Because practically any conversation with you ends up with you being
insulting and I think I shouldn't get into this.
So yes, it is my fault for bringing previous history into the way I read
your posts, which I shouldn't have done.
> I don't understand you people: you take pleasure in dishing out deeply
> insulting shit to others but if someone should `needle' you back a
> little, you get all `offended' and hoity-toity about it.
and 'You people', what does that mean? Who are the people I am in a
group with? Plus I didn't see any deeply insulting shit anywhere.
Sorry if you did
--
Woody
David Kennedy
> In article <463fa25a$0$8747$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> David Kennedy
> <davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invalid> wrote:
>> On 7/5/07 20:22, David wrote:
>>> Who said anything about New York?
>>>
>
>> You did.
>
> When? Where?
>
On the 7th
>> David, WY (and see my header)
Which reads, Home - 75 miles from Boston; 4 miles from N.Y.
David Kennedy
> I claim that `WY' would NOT be recognized as `West Yorkshire' even by as
> much as 10% of the population of the UK and is therefore not a widely
> recoginised abbreviation as has been falsely claimed. I claim - for the
> first time in this thread - that there are in fact no widely accepted
> two letter abbreviations for ANY English counties.
>
> And anyway, you'd need multiple counties with two letter abbreviations
> to disprove my point.
>
> I had never met `WY' used for `West Yorks' before I saw it recently in
> this newsgroup - never, in 40 years living in the UK. WY certainly
> doesn't count as a recognizable county name in my book.
More likely to be Wyoming...
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Umm. So you're ignorant, yes? That's a separate issue to the
> > > > abbreviation lark, innit?
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > > Your problem, Peter, is that you've got an automatic downer on
> > > > > > anything from these septic isles and tend to assume that it's
> > > > > > better abroad especially if `abroad' is France or the USA, I've
> > > > > > noticed.
> > > > >
> > > > > And your problem appears to be the oposite.
> > > >
> > > > Eh? Are you mad? Yes, you are.
> > >
> > > Sorry - my mistake. I forgot that if people disagree with you you go
> > > straight to insults.
> >
> > <puzzled> In what way is that insulting?
>
> Calling someone mad?
That's quite reasonable if someone makes an insulting and lunatic
suggestion, which is what you did.
> > I'm certainly being very much
> > less rude and insulting than you were to me in the post I was replying
> > to.
>
> Is it? In what way?
Making out that I'm a nationalist bigot.
> > If my carefully jocular response to your gratuitously /deeply/ insulting
> > post directed at me is going to get that sort of reaction - well, get
> > off your high bloody horse, sonny boy.
> >
> > Why so damned touchy?
>
> Because practically any conversation with you ends up with you being
> insulting and I think I shouldn't get into this.
No, it ends up with you taking offence. *I* don't think I was being
insulting - just responding in a fairly reasonable fashion to a
suggestion of yours that I found quite unpleasant.
> So yes, it is my fault for bringing previous history into the way I read
> your posts, which I shouldn't have done.
[snip]
Usually a bad idea.
Rowland.
Rowland McDonnell
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 16:35:07 +0100, Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
> > zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> >>
> >>> If my carefully jocular response to your gratuitously /deeply/ insulting
> >>> post directed at me is going to get that sort of reaction - well, get
> >>> off your high bloody horse, sonny boy.
> >>
> >> Woody was being insulting? I missed that.
> >
> > <shrug> I don't see any insult from me, either.
>
> Neither do I, which is why I brought up the Typical Usenet
> Misunderstanding...
Fair enough.
> > But think how an anarchist feels about being accused of holding
> > nationalist sentiments - just think about that for a minute. It's what
> > he did to me.
>
> Righto. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way.
No more than I meant to be insulting. I meant to be a bit abrupt, but
given what had been said, I thought that was about right.
> >> Anyway, seeing as we seem to have a Typical Usenet Misunderstanding going
> >> on here, can I buy you both a pint and forget about this? Because I don't
> >> think it's going to go anywhere, and alcohol solves *everything*.
> >
> > Only if you put the dose up to a fatal level in my case.
>
> *jangles change* We-ell... I can stretch to three pints of bitter...
<chuckle> Oh sod it, that'll do.
Woody
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > > I'm certainly being very much
> > > less rude and insulting than you were to me in the post I was replying
> > > to.
> >
> > Is it? In what way?
>
> Making out that I'm a nationalist bigot.
I didn't though. I made out that you thought that things from the USA
were worse. That doesn't imply that you are a nationalist.
--
Woody
David
Kennedy
<davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invalid>
wrote:
> On 8/5/07 09:30, David wrote:
> > In article <463fa25a$0$8747$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> > David Kennedy
> > <davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> On 7/5/07 20:22, David wrote:
> >>> Who said anything about New York?
> >>>
> >
> >> You did.
> >
> > When? Where?
> >
> On the 7th
> >> David, WY (and see my header)
> Which reads, Home - 75 miles from Boston; 4 miles from N.Y.
Don't see "New York" there.
David
Kennedy
<davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invalid>
wrote:
Didn't know there was a Wyoming in the UK. Where is it?
David Kennedy
> In article <4640fb5e$0$8748$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, David
> Kennedy
> <davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On 8/5/07 09:30, David wrote:
>>> In article <463fa25a$0$8747$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
>>> David Kennedy
>>> <davidk...@nospamtodaythanksverymuchforthekindofferyoubastard.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 7/5/07 20:22, David wrote:
>>>>> Who said anything about New York?
>>>>>
>>>> You did.
>>> When? Where?
>>>
>
>> On the 7th
>
>>>> David, WY (and see my header)
>
>> Which reads, Home - 75 miles from Boston; 4 miles from N.Y.
>
> Don't see "New York" there.
>
Look, you were trying to be a smart arse, now you're just being an arse.
Get a life.
zoara
> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> Woody was being insulting? I missed that.
>
> That's cos you're a stupid git.
Fuck off.
>> Anyway, seeing as we seem to have a Typical Usenet Misunderstanding going
>> on here, can I buy you both a pint and forget about this? Because I don't
>> think it's going to go anywhere, and alcohol solves *everything*.
>
> Mine's a pint. Oh, *please*, apint.
Fosters, right?
-z-
--
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >
Bella Jones
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:45:41 +0100, Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
> > If my carefully jocular response to your gratuitously /deeply/ insulting
> > post directed at me is going to get that sort of reaction - well, get
> > off your high bloody horse, sonny boy.
>
> Woody was being insulting? I missed that.
Woody is one of the least insulting people here, IMO.
> Anyway, seeing as we seem to have a Typical Usenet Misunderstanding going
> on here, can I buy you both a pint and forget about this? Because I don't
> think it's going to go anywhere, and alcohol solves *everything*.
In this case, the Knobbly Baton would be more appropriate, I think.
However, one thing I haven't seen round here for a while is a good,
solid, meaty grammar flame. Unless I've missed something?
--
bellajonez at yahoo dot co dot uk
Andy Hewitt
> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:45:41 +0100, Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> >
> > > If my carefully jocular response to your gratuitously /deeply/ insulting
> > > post directed at me is going to get that sort of reaction - well, get
> > > off your high bloody horse, sonny boy.
> >
> > Woody was being insulting? I missed that.
>
> Woody is one of the least insulting people here, IMO.
Agreed, I'm just wondering where this all came from TBH? I know Rowland
can be a little, well, abrupt at times, but that's nothing personal, and
I find there are only a minority that do actually get insulting here.
> > Anyway, seeing as we seem to have a Typical Usenet Misunderstanding going
> > on here, can I buy you both a pint and forget about this? Because I don't
> > think it's going to go anywhere, and alcohol solves *everything*.
>
> In this case, the Knobbly Baton would be more appropriate, I think.
I agree, I can speak from very bitter (no pun intended) personal
experience that alcohol most definitely does *not* solve anything.
> However, one thing I haven't seen round here for a while is a good,
> solid, meaty grammar flame. Unless I've missed something?
Grammar, that's nowt, just get started on apostrophe's! ;-)
--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>
PeterD
> On Wed, 9 May 2007 17:27:32 +1000, rpg wrote:
>
> > zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Woody was being insulting? I missed that.
> >
> > That's cos you're a stupid git.
>
> Fuck off.
A rude, stupid git.
> >> Anyway, seeing as we seem to have a Typical Usenet Misunderstanding going
> >> on here, can I buy you both a pint and forget about this? Because I don't
> >> think it's going to go anywhere, and alcohol solves *everything*.
> >
> > Mine's a pint. Oh, *please*, apint.
>
> Fosters, right?
God no. Nobody in Australia actually drinks Fosters. It's all exported.
Even Aussies have more taste than to drink that piss.
Same with the only Kiwi beer you can buy here, Steinlager. It's vile,
and totally unrepresentative of NZ beer. Newcastle Brown is the closest
thing I've found here to good old DB Brown, and Director's is a bit like
Lion Red.
--
Pd
Stewart Smith
>
> Same with the only Kiwi beer you can buy here, Steinlager. It's vile,
> and totally unrepresentative of NZ beer. Newcastle Brown is the closest
> thing I've found here to good old DB Brown, and Director's is a bit like
> Lion Red.
>
Well except that all NZ beer is still fizzy. I got seriously into
Speights when I was there, great brewery tour at their original site in
Dunedin. I'd love to get some over here.
Stewart
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
Speights is definitely good beer, but I preferred Monteiths myself.
Nice stuff, particularly their "summer ale" which is something
approaching a ginger beer without use of ginger. All fizzy though.
Ooh, http://www.sanza.co.uk/apps/shop/shop.asp?sc_id=566 have it -
splendid! I wish I'd known before the bank holiday, I'd have ordered
some up for the NZ expat friends I was camping with.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
'The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human
mind to correlate all its contents' - H.P.Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"
Andrew Stephenson
Stewar...@ee.ed.ac.uk "Stewart Smith" writes:
In 1991 I was quite pleased with the German-style beer they brew
around Nelson (northern of South Island). That area was settled
by many Germans way back. They also make decent wine, nearby in
Marlborough. And they do good "craft" pottery. And apples (the
wrong sort, alas).
--
Andrew Stephenson
zoara
> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 May 2007 17:27:32 +1000, rpg wrote:
>>
>>> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Woody was being insulting? I missed that.
>>>
>>> That's cos you're a stupid git.
>>
>> Fuck off.
>
> A rude, stupid git.
You can fuck off, too.
>>>> Anyway, seeing as we seem to have a Typical Usenet Misunderstanding going
>>>> on here, can I buy you both a pint and forget about this? Because I don't
>>>> think it's going to go anywhere, and alcohol solves *everything*.
>>>
>>> Mine's a pint. Oh, *please*, apint.
>>
>> Fosters, right?
>
> God no. Nobody in Australia actually drinks Fosters. It's all exported.
> Even Aussies have more taste than to drink that piss.
I know. :)
I just chose the worst beer I could think of and it happened to be
(stereotypically) Aussie so that was double-good.
zoara
> zoara <me...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mine's a pint. Oh, *please*, apint.
>>
>> Fosters, right?
>
> *cries*
That was harsh, I know.
-z-
--
___
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O RLY?