Pointless: Redcoat!

[Dry Gulch Pete]

"We asked 100 people to name in 100 seconds which name derived from the word
'horseman' was used as a nickname for Royalist supporters during the English
Civil War".

A pretty girl contestant said, "I have an American friend who always calls
me 'Redcoat', so I'll go for 'Redcoat'"!

Guess what?

--
(_(_)_)
DGP
http://z2.ifrm.com/10701/5/0/p1049597/DGP.mp3

[The Other Mike]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:07:01 +0100, "Dry Gulch Pete" <paci...@btopenworld.com>
wrote:

>"We asked 100 people to name in 100 seconds which name derived from the word
>'horseman' was used as a nickname for Royalist supporters during the English
>Civil War".
>
>A pretty girl contestant said, "I have an American friend who always calls
>me 'Redcoat', so I'll go for 'Redcoat'"!
>
>Guess what?

The question was nothing to do with Butlins?


--

[GordonD]

"Martin" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:c00dm8tjms4p2bmlk...@4ax.com...

> That joke was made too :-)
>
> Redcoats was the nickname for the British army in the US war of
> independence.


Loved that one guy is going to buy a life-size Dalek with his winnings! As
Alexander Armstrong said, if you add to that the fact that he won because he
knew that Burn Gorman out of 'Torchwood' appeared in the Dark Knight trilogy
then he's a hero in a certain part of the community!
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

[Mike Swift]

In article <beucm8dd9a4nj57t2...@4ax.com>, The Other Mike
<rootpa...@somewhereorother.com> writes

>>"We asked 100 people to name in 100 seconds which name derived from the word
>>'horseman' was used as a nickname for Royalist supporters during the English
>>Civil War".
>>
>>A pretty girl contestant said, "I have an American friend who always calls
>>me 'Redcoat', so I'll go for 'Redcoat'"!
>>
>>Guess what?
>
>The question was nothing to do with Butlins?
>

It amazes me how little 'general' knowledge many young people have these
days and some of the contestants who are university student seem the
least informed.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

[John Dean]

"Martin" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:c00dm8tjms4p2bmlk...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:52:51 +0100, The Other Mike
> <rootpa...@somewhereorother.com> wrote:
>

> That joke was made too :-)
>
> Redcoats was the nickname for the British army in the US war of
> independence.

Long before that. eg this quote from 1644 in OED:

"Colonell Hollis his regiment of Red-coats?did most gallant service."

And even in the Song of Lady Bessy in 1520 you have:

"Sir William Stanley, that royall knight, then

Ten thousand red-coats had he,"

--
John Dean

[Dry Gulch Pete]

"The Other Mike" <rootpa...@somewhereorother.com> wrote in message
news:beucm8dd9a4nj57t2...@4ax.com...

<g> I went to Butlins, Bognor Regis for a week when I was a schoolboy with 3
pals.
I ran out of money after 3 days! :'(

--
DGP

[Norman Wells]

That's probably because you spent it.

[Dry Gulch Pete]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:DbD9t.385422$me4....@fx05.fr7...

LOL - you're not wrong!

--
DGP

[John Dean]

"Martin" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message

news:caaem85s1ohan33uu...@4ax.com...

> Yes, but I explained why the Americans call them red coats.
> --

And *I* explained they weren't the only ones. Your point?

--
John Dean

[John Dean]

"Martin" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message

news:hsefm8hu2hh1m6gn9...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:22:44 +0100, "John Dean"

> That you should read the context before wasting your time looking up
> things in OED.

What context? You pointed out the term was used in the American Revolution,
I pointed out it was also used earlier than that. What's your problem?
BTW, I don't see the bit where you "explained why the Americans call them
red coats". Was that in a different post?
PS It's never a waste of time looking up things in OED.

--
John Dean

[The Other Mike]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:43:53 +0100, Mike Swift <mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <beucm8dd9a4nj57t2...@4ax.com>, The Other Mike
><rootpa...@somewhereorother.com> writes
>>>"We asked 100 people to name in 100 seconds which name derived from the word
>>>'horseman' was used as a nickname for Royalist supporters during the English
>>>Civil War".
>>>
>>>A pretty girl contestant said, "I have an American friend who always calls
>>>me 'Redcoat', so I'll go for 'Redcoat'"!
>>>
>>>Guess what?
>>
>>The question was nothing to do with Butlins?
>>
>
>It amazes me how little 'general' knowledge many young people have these
>days and some of the contestants who are university student seem the
>least informed.

I was thinking about this recently and it's difficult to say when and where ones
particular general knowledge was acquired. Before the age of the internet and
wikipedia: in education, talking with friends / relatives, books, and tv /
radio.

I'll admit I know next to bugger all about 'popular' music post 1990, would
struggle to name anyone from a soap nor would I have any idea which celebrity is
shacked up with which. There are areas where my science knowledge has clearly
faded, areas where my cultural and geographical knowledge has improved but my
memory is clearly worse and things I'm sure I knew 10 years ago are but a
distant memory. I occasionally do ok on University Challenge, now and again not
only speaking the answer almost immediately but an answer none of them could
get. Mastermind with similar results but not consistently. In pub quizzes our
team a decade or more ago were often right up there, the odd one I now gatecrash
I end up failing on some half assed celeb / music questions

What has changed to impact on the level of general knowledge of the younger
generation? I can't put my finger on it as the sources immediately available
are a few orders of magnitude better than they were xx years back. Maybe they
just know far more crap and less useful stuff?


--

[Norman Wells]

The Other Mike wrote:

> What has changed to impact on the level of general knowledge of the
> younger generation? I can't put my finger on it as the sources
> immediately available are a few orders of magnitude better than they
> were xx years back. Maybe they just know far more crap and less
> useful stuff?

I think educationalists and the kids themselves have given up on having
to know anything. After all, there's the internet that'll tell you in
seconds whatever you want to know. Information doesn't have to be in
your head any more if it's stored in the cloud.

So, let's not bother with any knowledge; it's all irrelevant. As long
as you know how to look it up, that's the important thing.

And the fact that anyone can do that, so everyone's reduced to the
lowest common denominator, isn't seen as a problem until they find that
it doesn't make them attractive to any employer who is already full up
with people who can look things up, even if they don't have any ability
to sort the wheat from the chaff (or even know what wheat and chaff
are).

[Mike Swift]

In article <djgom81knt8aa2i3m...@4ax.com>, The Other Mike
<rootpa...@somewhereorother.com> writes

>What has changed to impact on the level of general knowledge of the
>younger generation? I can't put my finger on it as the sources immediately
>available are a few orders of magnitude better than they were xx years back.
>Maybe they just know far more crap and less useful stuff?

Maybe we read more, books and newspapers, listened to the news rather
than some vacuous celebrity rubbish.

It's not new, 25 years ago I had youngsters working for me who couldn't
tell you where Bristol was.

I'm reassured listening to my 8 year old granddaughter that things may
be on the mend, she seems to have a general knowledge beyond her years.

[Calum]

On 16/04/2013 00:12, Mike Swift wrote:

> It's not new, 25 years ago I had youngsters working for me who couldn't
> tell you where Bristol was.

And I wonder how many people who do know where it is would believe that
it's further east than Edinburgh. (I still have to check a map every now
and again just to convince myself!)

--
Xbox: GallusNumpty Steam: scottishwildcat

[GordonD]

"Calum" <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote in message
news:kkn5j0$iuv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 16/04/2013 00:12, Mike Swift wrote:
>
>> It's not new, 25 years ago I had youngsters working for me who couldn't
>> tell you where Bristol was.
>
> And I wonder how many people who do know where it is would believe that
> it's further east than Edinburgh. (I still have to check a map every now
> and again just to convince myself!)

I agree with that! On my one and only visit to Bristol I was convinced it
was the furthest west on the UK mainland that I had ever been. Until I
looked at a map and found I was *east* of where I live!

[Vidcapper]

On 17/04/2013 22:52, Calum wrote:
> On 16/04/2013 00:12, Mike Swift wrote:
>
>> It's not new, 25 years ago I had youngsters working for me who couldn't
>> tell you where Bristol was.
>
> And I wonder how many people who do know where it is would believe that
> it's further east than Edinburgh.

I never realised that!
>


--
Regards,

Paul Hyett

[Halmyre]

On Apr 17, 11:44 pm, "GordonD" <g.da...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Calum" <com.gm...@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote in message

>
> news:kkn5j0$iuv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> > On 16/04/2013 00:12, Mike Swift wrote:
>
> >> It's not new, 25 years ago I had youngsters working for me who couldn't
> >> tell you where Bristol was.
>
> > And I wonder how many people who do know where it is would believe that
> > it's further east than Edinburgh. (I still have to check a map every now
> > and again just to convince myself!)
>
> I agree with that! On my one and only visit to Bristol I was convinced it
> was the furthest west on the UK mainland that I had ever been. Until I
> looked at a map and found I was *east* of where I live!

Where I live is further north than Moscow, and Vancouver. Parts of the
Shetlands are further north than the south cape of Greenland, and on
the same latitude as Anchorage, Alaska. And any part of the UK is
further north than Vladivostock, or any part of the USA.

--
Halmyre

[Robin Chapman]

On 18/04/2013 10:33, Halmyre wrote:
> On Apr 17, 11:44 pm, "GordonD" <g.da...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "Calum" <com.gm...@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote in message
>>
>> news:kkn5j0$iuv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>>> On 16/04/2013 00:12, Mike Swift wrote:
>>
>>>> It's not new, 25 years ago I had youngsters working for me who couldn't
>>>> tell you where Bristol was.
>>
>>> And I wonder how many people who do know where it is would believe that
>>> it's further east than Edinburgh. (I still have to check a map every now
>>> and again just to convince myself!)
>>
>> I agree with that! On my one and only visit to Bristol I was convinced it
>> was the furthest west on the UK mainland that I had ever been. Until I
>> looked at a map and found I was *east* of where I live!
>
> Where I live is further north than Moscow, and Vancouver.

Pretty much all the UK is north of Vancouver.

> Parts of the
> Shetlands are further north than the south cape of Greenland, and on
> the same latitude as Anchorage, Alaska. And any part of the UK is
> further north than Vladivostock, or any part of the USA.

except Alaska :-)