The Monachy
Harry Hanslow
keep the Queen as the head of state.Laughable isn't it
Harry H
News
Harry Hanslow <ha...@aaanet.net.au> wrote in message
news:6wRR3.2014$1C1....@ozemail.com.au...
> Congratulations Tony Blair.Here we are in Australia having a referendum to
> keep the Queen as the head of state.Laughable isn't it
> Harry H
I hope you Aussies do the right thing and get rid of the anachronism.
Remember she got rid of your government in 1975 - gross political
interference. You should not tolerate that.
Best of luck for your future republic.
mikeandsue_bennett.com
I (along with many others I bet) wish to goodness you would get your facts
right, just for once - it would really make a change.
When the maker gave you an oral orifice, it only enhanced a pathetic rectal
opening.
The dismissal of "God Gough" was nothing to do with HM, it was all to do
with a bloody idiot who needed to be removed before he completely stuffed
the parliamentary process.
Stick to the lack of knowledge of your own politics, we Aussies are more
than capable of making up our own minds, unlike you pathetic bastards, who
would prefer to worship some dick head in Brussels
Please do not bother to reply. I doubt if anyone will care to read it, I
know I shall not.
----------
In article <7v98ci$a1o$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "News"
News
> Dick Head AKS as News,
> I (along with many others I bet) wish to goodness you would
> get your facts right, just for once - it would really make a
> change. When the maker gave you an oral orifice, it only
> enhanced a pathetic rectal opening.
>
> The dismissal of "God Gough" was nothing to do with HM, it was all to do
> with a bloody idiot who needed to be removed before he completely stuffed
> the parliamentary process.
The Governor General is the Queens rep in Auss'. He carries out her orders.
"THE QUEEN" was rid of your prime minister, irrespective if you thought he
needed it or not. The Aussies never got rid of him. The governor would not
do such a controversial act unless he consulted the Queen. Nothing to do
with the British governement.
> Stick to the lack of knowledge of your own politics,
> we Aussies are more than capable of making up
> our own minds, unlike you pathetic bastards, who
> would prefer to worship some dick head in Brussels
Wow!! You are bitter and twisted. Have you been on the Fosters (lousy
beer). The good thinbg about being in the EU is that we now don;t have to
buy that awful Aussie lamb. Horrid stuff!
> Please do not bother to reply. I doubt if anyone
> will care to read it, I know I shall not.
I just had to. I need laugh.
Dave
>
>
> The Governor General is the Queens rep in Auss'. He carries out her orders.
> "THE QUEEN" was rid of your prime minister, irrespective if you thought he
> needed it or not. The Aussies never got rid of him. The governor would not
> do such a controversial act unless he consulted the Queen. Nothing to do
> with the British governement.
>
You seem to be unaware of the facts. The Governor-General is a
'Strine whou consulted with Barry Humphries.
Dave
Chris Cook
I like the sound of this post.
> > I (along with many others I bet) wish to goodness you would
> > get your facts right, just for once - it would really make a
> > change. When the maker gave you an oral orifice, it only
> > enhanced a pathetic rectal opening.
> >
> > The dismissal of "God Gough" was nothing to do with HM, it was all to do
> > with a bloody idiot who needed to be removed before he completely
stuffed
> > the parliamentary process.
>
> The Governor General is the Queens rep in Auss'.
Impressive extra "s".
He carries out her orders.
> "THE QUEEN" was rid of your prime minister, irrespective if you thought he
> needed it or not. The Aussies never got rid of him. The governor would
not
> do such a controversial act unless he consulted the Queen.
Really? Because she has real power, does she? I thought she was an inactive
parasite...now she's a meddling heathen...
Nothing to do
> with the British governement.
Well. There you go. It must have been the Queen then, mustn't it....
>
> > Stick to the lack of knowledge of your own politics,
> > we Aussies are more than capable of making up
> > our own minds, unlike you pathetic bastards, who
> > would prefer to worship some dick head in Brussels
>
> Wow!! You are bitter and twisted. Have you been on the Fosters (lousy
> beer). The good thinbg about being in the EU is that we now don;t have
to
> buy that awful Aussie lamb. Horrid stuff!
>
i) Two exclamation marks are over-emphasis.
ii) NZ is known for its lamb. Australia has a massive sheep industry,
true. But is it known for it here?
iii) Is it likely that someone as uncultured/stupid as you could tewll the
difference between southern hemisphere lamb and GB lamb?
iv) Why did the EU change that?
v) Tangeants, tangeants everywhere.
> > Please do not bother to reply. I doubt if anyone
> > will care to read it, I know I shall not.
>
> I just had to. I need laugh.
>
No. You need medication.
Dave
>
>snip
>
> > The Governor General is the Queens rep in Auss'.
>
> Impressive extra "s".
>
>
>
> v) Tangeants, tangeants everywhere.
>
That's 'tangents, tangents everywhere'. Once is a typo, twice is
intentional. Of course, you violated one of the fundemental laws of the
internet - if you correct a spelling mistake, you invariable make one
yerself.
Dave
Chris Cook
Dave <NOSPAMd...@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:381B16...@isomedia.com...
D'oh! Its a fair cop.
I misspelt tangent...
But it still doesn't excuse tangency.
Kareem
started with his own.
--
Kareem
Pax Vobiscum
Chris Cook wrote in message <7vh3dr$l5$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
News
> nations as possible. He started with his own.
The truth does piss some people off. That's life! That's their problem!
Chris Cook
News <evertonia@evertonia***.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7vp9m9$dk4$6...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I believe News is just trying to piss off as many
> > nations as possible. He started with his own.
>
> The truth does piss some people off. That's life! That's their problem!
>
Better to be pissed off than in denial...
Melissa
Australian Republic...around 55% against and only one State has a clear
majority in favour (4 are needed) King Charles, come on down under! (hmmm,
perhaps I will make that move to Moscow ;)
News
Very close call. 54% voted in favour of keeping the Queen. If the
Republicans had ran a better campaign they could have turned it. All their
computer files were wiped in a raid on their headquarters.
Still, on the 5th, 656 hereditary Lords were given the boot for the house of
Lords - a historic day. The beginning of the end!!! In 10 to 20 years
Australia and the UK should be republics - and about time too.
Alex Ball
<evertonia@evertonia***.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> As of now (10:52 pm, Australian time) things aren't looking too good for
>the
>> Australian Republic...around 55% against and only one State has a clear
>> majority in favour (4 are needed) King Charles, come on down under!
>(hmmm,
>> perhaps I will make that move to Moscow ;)
>
>Very close call. 54% voted in favour of keeping the Queen. If the
>Republicans had ran a better campaign they could have turned it. All their
>computer files were wiped in a raid on their headquarters.
>
More accurately, if they'd suggested a sensible and democratic (which
I thought you'd be interested in, Mr, The Lords Are Evil) selection
system for the president, they may well have won. Witness many
republicans standing around with placards saying, "We don't want
*this* Republic"
--
Alex Ball
alex...@mail.com
ICQ:17821675
News
Alex Ball <alex...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:38243fe...@news.freeuk.net...
When the current young Aussies of age and the old ones have died off, the
republic will be a reality. The only reason the vote stood up was that the
old ones still rely on the UK for protection. If the Indonesians invade the
UK will intervene!!!! Australian is too big for the population to protect
itself.
And the hereditary Lords are NO MORE. THANK GOD FOR THAT!!!!!!!!!! THE
MONARCHY NEXT!!!!!
News
They are not already!!!
Melissa
News
Do you mean they are not?
Alex Ball
<evertonia@evertonia***.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> More accurately, if they'd suggested a sensible and democratic (which
>> I thought you'd be interested in, Mr, The Lords Are Evil) selection
>> system for the president, they may well have won. Witness many
>> republicans standing around with placards saying, "We don't want
>> *this* Republic"
>
>
>When the current young Aussies of age and the old ones have died off, the
>republic will be a reality. The only reason the vote stood up was that the
>old ones still rely on the UK for protection.
And in English? The only the reason the vote stood up was that the
electorate rejected the ideas put forward by the politicians. Welcome
to the world of democray.
> If the Indonesians invade the
>UK will intervene!!!! Australian is too big for the population to protect
>itself.
Fucking right too. The British always do (and should) protect
democratic regiemes against undemocratic oppressors.
>
>And the hereditary Lords are NO MORE.
Nearly. If you read the papers occasionally and you might have
discovered that 92 are still sitting in the HoL
> THANK GOD FOR THAT!!!!!!!!!! THE
>MONARCHY NEXT!!!!!
*Why* exactly do you want to remove the monarchy? (I'm hoping you
might actually answer the question this time)
Dave
>
> > More accurately, if they'd suggested a sensible and democratic (which
> > I thought you'd be interested in, Mr, The Lords Are Evil) selection
> > system for the president, they may well have won. Witness many
> > republicans standing around with placards saying, "We don't want
> > *this* Republic"
>
> When the current young Aussies of age and the old ones have died off, the
> republic will be a reality.
They've been saying that for forty years, to my knowledge.
Dave
Chris Cook
Alex Ball <alex...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 23:03:10 -0000, "News"
> <evertonia@evertonia***.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>
> >> I thought you'd be interested in, Mr, The Lords Are Evil) selection
> >> system for the president, they may well have won. Witness many
> >> republicans standing around with placards saying, "We don't want
> >> *this* Republic"
> >
> >
> >When the current young Aussies of age and the old ones have died off,
the
the
> >old ones still rely on the UK for protection.
What the f*** are you on? We still send canned food to Australia because
the colonists can't manage on their own, do we?
> And in English? The only the reason the vote stood up was that the
> electorate rejected the ideas put forward by the politicians. Welcome
> to the world of democray.
>
> > If the Indonesians invade the
> >UK will intervene!!!! Australian is too big for the population to
protect
> >itself.
>
> Fucking right too. The British always do (and should) protect
> democratic regiemes against undemocratic oppressors.
Sorry..."If the Indonesians invade"... Why should they?
Alex (the Rabid Bee)...I think we've found a modern contemporary with an
early-modern outlook.... If we ever need to know what a typical English
peasant of the 16th C. might think, we only have to ask our irritating
scouse friend.
> >
> >And the hereditary Lords are NO MORE.
>
> Nearly. If you read the papers occasionally and you might have
> discovered that 92 are still sitting in the HoL
>
> > THANK GOD FOR THAT!!!!!!!!!! THE
> >MONARCHY NEXT!!!!!
>
> *Why* exactly do you want to remove the monarchy? (I'm hoping you
> might actually answer the question this time)
Give a thought to the Anglicans... As Liverpool is such a cosmopolotan cent
re of Englishness (?) you presumably will anyway...
He doesn't need to. He's told us it needs abolition, and that is enough.
They are a milestone around our neck after all, and with their "fairy
tails", they aren't even human ones at that.
News
> >> More accurately, if they'd suggested a sensible and democratic (which
> >> I thought you'd be interested in, Mr, The Lords Are Evil) selection
> >> system for the president, they may well have won. Witness many
> >> republicans standing around with placards saying, "We don't want
> >> *this* Republic"
> >
> >
> >When the current young Aussies of age and the old ones have died off,
the
> >republic will be a reality. The only reason the vote stood up was that
the
> >old ones still rely on the UK for protection.
>
> electorate rejected the ideas put forward by the politicians. Welcome
> to the world of democray.
>
> > If the Indonesians invade the
> >UK will intervene!!!! Australian is too big for the population to
protect
> >itself.
>
> Fucking right too. The British always do (and should) protect
> democratic regiemes against undemocratic oppressors.
>
> >
>
> Nearly. If you read the papers occasionally and you might have
> discovered that 92 are still sitting in the HoL
>
> > THANK GOD FOR THAT!!!!!!!!!! THE
> >MONARCHY NEXT!!!!!
>
> *Why* exactly do you want to remove the monarchy? (I'm hoping you
> might actually answer the question this time)
Well you should have read PROPERLY the posts I sent.
1) It is NOT DEMOCRATIC.
2) It is the worst case example as it puts people in power by birthright -
LUDICROUS!!!!
3) It upholds just about everything that is holding back the British
people - upholds privilege, class etc.
4) Etc
5) Etc,
Simple really. Even you could figure those out - or could you?
Chris Cook
So? You want rule by Soviets, do you? One of the roles of government is to
consider the wishes of the people and moderate them to prevent a tyranny of
the masses. This system has worked without any problems for a damned sight
longer than you've thought about it, so please avtually identify one actual
problem as opposed to presuming that democracy is a be-all and end-all of
government. Democracy is an ideal of government, not an ideology.
> 2) It is the worst case example as it puts people in power by
birthright -
> LUDICROUS!!!!
This is the same as your appalling first point.
> 3) It upholds just about everything that is holding back the British
> people - upholds privilege, class etc.
Really? Did the aristocracy (notably the Junkers) stop dominating Germany
after the abdications of 1918? How exactly will it change? Do you still
believe that the (supposed) dominance of the peers, Oxbridge and the
oh-so-powerful upper classes will end, and that we'll all suddenly be
richer? Do you believe people will listen to you?
This is not even an O-P-I-N-I-O-N, it is an unsupported A-S-S-E-R-T-I-O-N.
It is not an A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T, becaus it lacks F-A-C-T-S or even
E-X-P-L-A-N-A-T-I-O-N. I hear Ladybird do some cracking books to help
people like you- chewable pages 'n' all.
> 4) Etc
Good point, well made.
> 5) Etc,
Another well expressed point.
> Simple really. Even you could figure those out - or could you?
No. Because I tend to think fairly logically, and usually need facts to
convince myself of arguments...a necessity you seem to have overcome.
Rabid Bee
> > might actually answer the question this time)
>
> Well you should have read PROPERLY the posts I sent.
we have, and yet again the arguments are as hollow as the ones listed
below.
> 1) It is NOT DEMOCRATIC.
Yes it is! If the majority of the people want it and chose to keep it,
then my firend that is democracy in action. Secondly, if it does not
block democracy, but indeed encourages democratic practice and
government, then that too is democratic. You are too caught up in the
idea of the office. Yes, it may be unelected, but that doesn't itself
make it undemocratic. We are still governed by a democratically -elected
government, which generally has a hell of a lot less popularity than the
monarchy anyway.
> 2) It is the worst case example as it puts people in power by birthright -
> LUDICROUS!!!!
If you actually study history, you may learn that this in itself is not
necessarily a bad thing. The French government of the seventeenth
century has been attacked because it had a system of hereditary
office-holding (ie civil service). However, once historians were
willing to escape this very 20th century mindset, and actually a) study
the evidence and b) empathise with the period (two essential skills, by
the way News), they found that this impression was misleading.
Because the office-holding was hereditary, it gave the family the
opportunity to educate their children in the skills necessary for that
office, and so produced a trained, skillful, educated bureacracy. Had
this not been the case, it is doubtful that France could have filled one
tenth of the offices with men of that training.
Secondly, the hereditary nature of the office helped eliminate a level
of faction - because ambitious men weren't beholden to any broker for
his office, he inherited it automatically. Although it obviously didn't
eliminate faction and patronage, I would suggest that the hereditary
nature of offices meant that the day-to-day bureaucracy was stabilised
and made more easy to understand for contemporaries.
We in the late 20th century are so convinced that election by the
majority is the best way to do things, we often fail to even consider
the various merits of any other system. However, if you really want to
evaluate something, you have to first fairly consider *all* the
alternitives.
> 3) It upholds just about everything that is holding back the British
> people - upholds privilege, class etc.
And natuarally this will just disappear in a puff of smoke over night?
Do you really think that even the USA, which considers itself to be the
epitimy of democracy (which in my mind it is not), is free of privilege
and class, of prejudice and powerful cliques?
> Simple really. Even you could figure those out - or could you?
Look, all we are asking is that you actually give facts and details.
Saying "the monarchy is undemocratic" is not a fact, that is merely your
opinion. If you actually want to construct an argument, try to escape
the narrative, the invective, the pollemic and the propaganda, and
actually base what you say in hard, cold fact. You believe that
monarchy to be undemocratic - I think we have all grasped that by now.
You have yet to actually give reasons as to what makes the monarchy
undemocratic - don't simply say because it is unelected, that is not
enough of an argument.
And what would you replace it with, anyway?
Cheers, Alex
Kareem
advanced people in the world, science, engineering, etc. What do you have
that we don't? Well, it can't be brains. If you disagree with that, that
makes you a bigot. It can't be ingenuity. Afterall, America, Japan and
Germany seem to be the 3 dominants in industry. Hmmm. Must be the Queen!
;-)
--
Kareem
Pax Vobiscum
News wrote in message <804leh$vmi$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> >>
>> >> More accurately, if they'd suggested a sensible and democratic (which
>> >> I thought you'd be interested in, Mr, The Lords Are Evil) selection
>> >> system for the president, they may well have won. Witness many
>> >> republicans standing around with placards saying, "We don't want
>> >> *this* Republic"
>> >
>> >
>> >When the current young Aussies of age and the old ones have died off,
>the
>> >republic will be a reality. The only reason the vote stood up was that
>the
>> >old ones still rely on the UK for protection.
>>
>> And in English? The only the reason the vote stood up was that the
>> electorate rejected the ideas put forward by the politicians. Welcome
>> to the world of democray.
>>
>> > If the Indonesians invade the
>> >UK will intervene!!!! Australian is too big for the population to
>protect
>> >itself.
>>
>> Fucking right too. The British always do (and should) protect
>> democratic regiemes against undemocratic oppressors.
>>
>> >
>> >And the hereditary Lords are NO MORE.
>>
>> Nearly. If you read the papers occasionally and you might have
>> discovered that 92 are still sitting in the HoL
>>
>> > THANK GOD FOR THAT!!!!!!!!!! THE
>> >MONARCHY NEXT!!!!!
>>
>> *Why* exactly do you want to remove the monarchy? (I'm hoping you
>> might actually answer the question this time)
>
>Well you should have read PROPERLY the posts I sent.
>
>1) It is NOT DEMOCRATIC.
>2) It is the worst case example as it puts people in power by birthright -
>LUDICROUS!!!!
>3) It upholds just about everything that is holding back the British
>people - upholds privilege, class etc.
>4) Etc
>5) Etc,
News
> advanced people in the world, science, engineering, etc. What do you have
> that we don't? Well, it can't be brains. If you disagree with that, that
> makes you a bigot. It can't be ingenuity. Afterall, America, Japan and
> Germany seem to be the 3 dominants in industry. Hmmm. Must be the Queen!
> ;-)
Why is Bill Gates putting his research facilities in England, if the USA is
so bright?
Chris Cook
Here's an answer you won't like, you big twat; Cambridge is regarded as an
extreme centre of excellence for computing/computer science (with/without
justification, although the Oxbridge Corridor certainly suggests it is
deserved). I suppose you should know that, given that you are a
comp-scientist after all (supposedly). Is that the root of your deep hatred
of the elites? Passed over for promotion, were we? (and couldn't form an
argument against the action, since "Promote ME!" apparently didn't work, no
matter how many times you repeated it....
News
> the British are the most advanced people in
> the world, science, engineering, etc.
That is so.
> What do you have that we don't?
You have cars that use an amazing amount of fuel and pollute the planet, and
we don't. We also have better ale than you. And the food is awful in the
States too - it all tastes the same.
> Well, it can't be brains. If you disagree
> with that, that makes you a bigot.
Uh!
> It can't be ingenuity. Afterall, America,
> Japan and Germany seem to be the 3
> dominants in industry.
The Brits innovate more than the rest of you. They have a history of this.
> Hmmm. Must be the Queen! ;-)
No. She is quite dumb. You can have her back if you want. You can share
her with the Canadians. She could live in a castle on the 49th parallel.
Melissa
point was obviously that they already appeared to be stuffed...
Katherine Manson
>
> Why is Bill Gates putting his research facilities in England, if the USA
is
> so bright?
Controversial plans for one of Microsoft's key research laboratories to be
housed in Cambridge University have just been shelved. Without a tenant to
share the new West Cambridge Computer Laboratories, the Cambridge Computer
Laboratory may find funding difficult. The future direction of Computer
Science in Cambridge now depends on high level confidential talks between
Microsoft and the University.
Cambridge is supposed to be a powerhouse that dominates the rest of the UK,
and is comparable to the Ivy League in the United States. Anyone who has
spent time in and around the University in the last five years will know
that every year the University becomes more desperate to gain funding in
order to keep itself as the cream of the crop.
With only our Prime Minister being more powerful than Bill Gates (allegedly)
its rather sickening to realise that Microsoft dominates the country's
institutions to such an extent. I remember the Conservative Party boasting
that Britain was very successful in attracting foreign investment; yet if a
country cannot generate its own companies, I'd feel that it was at the mercy
of foreign investment.
This isn't jingoism, just a feeling that we do have considerable abilties in
Britain, and that most often, it isn't Britain that benefits from those
abilties. After all, the idea behind the Microsoft research labs in
Cambridge was that they would be mixed in with the Cambridge researchers,
thus being able to benefit from the newest University research, which is
comes a lot cheaper than Microsoft doing the same work.
Chris Cook
> > But Mr. News, according to your other threads,
> > the British are the most advanced people in
> > the world, science, engineering, etc.
>
> That is so.
>
> > What do you have that we don't?
>
> You have cars that use an amazing amount of fuel and pollute the planet,
and
> we don't.
We can't afford the, because of fuel taxes and the price of cars. Heard of
"Jaguar"?
We also have better ale than you.
Ahh. That is true.
And the food is awful in the
> States too - it all tastes the same.
Generalisation? I think so.
>
> > Well, it can't be brains. If you disagree
> > with that, that makes you a bigot.
>
> Uh!
Good bigotism.
>
> > It can't be ingenuity. Afterall, America,
> > Japan and Germany seem to be the 3
> > dominants in industry.
>
> The Brits innovate more than the rest of you. They have a history of
this.
>
Oh dear....
News
> > Why is Bill Gates putting his research facilities
> > in England, if the USA is so bright?
>
> considerable abilties in Britain,
We did invent computers!
> and that most often, it isn't Britain that
> benefits from those abilties.
You said it.
> After all, the idea behind the Microsoft
> research labs in Cambridge was that
> they would be mixed in with the Cambridge
> researchers, thus being able to benefit
> from the newest University research, which is
> comes a lot cheaper than Microsoft doing
> the same work.
They can do that in the USA, but the UK is where the inventiveness is more
prevalent, so he wants to come here.
Kareem
retirement. It is done that way to avoid politics as much as possible and
freedom from interference. I can conceive of the Royals following along
those lines.
--
Kareem
Pax Vobiscum
Rabid Bee wrote in message <382726...@mcmail.com>...
>> > *Why* exactly do you want to remove the monarchy? (I'm hoping you
>> > might actually answer the question this time)
>>
>> Well you should have read PROPERLY the posts I sent.
>
>we have, and yet again the arguments are as hollow as the ones listed
>below.
>
>> 1) It is NOT DEMOCRATIC.
>
>Yes it is! If the majority of the people want it and chose to keep it,
>then my firend that is democracy in action. Secondly, if it does not
>block democracy, but indeed encourages democratic practice and
>government, then that too is democratic. You are too caught up in the
>idea of the office. Yes, it may be unelected, but that doesn't itself
>make it undemocratic. We are still governed by a democratically -elected
>government, which generally has a hell of a lot less popularity than the
>monarchy anyway.
>
>> 2) It is the worst case example as it puts people in power by
birthright -
>> LUDICROUS!!!!
>
>If you actually study history, you may learn that this in itself is not
>necessarily a bad thing. The French government of the seventeenth
>century has been attacked because it had a system of hereditary
>office-holding (ie civil service). However, once historians were
>willing to escape this very 20th century mindset, and actually a) study
>the evidence and b) empathise with the period (two essential skills, by
>the way News), they found that this impression was misleading.
>
>Because the office-holding was hereditary, it gave the family the
>opportunity to educate their children in the skills necessary for that
>office, and so produced a trained, skillful, educated bureacracy. Had
>this not been the case, it is doubtful that France could have filled one
>tenth of the offices with men of that training.
>
>Secondly, the hereditary nature of the office helped eliminate a level
>of faction - because ambitious men weren't beholden to any broker for
>his office, he inherited it automatically. Although it obviously didn't
>eliminate faction and patronage, I would suggest that the hereditary
>nature of offices meant that the day-to-day bureaucracy was stabilised
>and made more easy to understand for contemporaries.
>
>We in the late 20th century are so convinced that election by the
>majority is the best way to do things, we often fail to even consider
>the various merits of any other system. However, if you really want to
>evaluate something, you have to first fairly consider *all* the
>alternitives.
>
>> 3) It upholds just about everything that is holding back the British
>> people - upholds privilege, class etc.
>
>And natuarally this will just disappear in a puff of smoke over night?
>Do you really think that even the USA, which considers itself to be the
>epitimy of democracy (which in my mind it is not), is free of privilege
>and class, of prejudice and powerful cliques?
>
>> Simple really. Even you could figure those out - or could you?
>
Dave
>
> Cambridge is supposed to be a powerhouse that dominates the rest of the UK,
> and is comparable to the Ivy League in the United States.
The best science schools are at MIT, Caltech and Stanford. None of
which are 'Ivy League'.
Dave
Dave
>
> > But Mr. News, according to your other threads,
> > the British are the most advanced people in
> > the world, science, engineering, etc.
>
> That is so.
>
> > What do you have that we don't?
>
Used to be true, but not anymore.
Dave
Kareem
--
Kareem
Pax Vobiscum
News wrote in message <807i54$pdp$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> But Mr. News, according to your other threads, the British are the most
>> advanced people in the world, science, engineering, etc. What do you
have
>> that we don't? Well, it can't be brains. If you disagree with that,
that
>> makes you a bigot. It can't be ingenuity. Afterall, America, Japan and
>> Germany seem to be the 3 dominants in industry. Hmmm. Must be the
Queen!
>> ;-)
>
Kareem
any size including people. I don't drink, so you can keep the ale too.
Funny, we have no English restaurants here. Could that mean something? You
keep the Queen. We fought a war over that one and won. She's all yours!
--
Kareem
Pax Vobiscum
News wrote in message <807sq6$via$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> But Mr. News, according to your other threads,
>> the British are the most advanced people in
>> the world, science, engineering, etc.
>
>That is so.
>
>> What do you have that we don't?
>
>You have cars that use an amazing amount of fuel and pollute the planet,
and
>we don't. We also have better ale than you. And the food is awful in the
>States too - it all tastes the same.
>
>> Well, it can't be brains. If you disagree
>> with that, that makes you a bigot.
>
>Uh!
>
>> It can't be ingenuity. Afterall, America,
>> Japan and Germany seem to be the 3
>> dominants in industry.
>
>The Brits innovate more than the rest of you. They have a history of this.
>
>> Hmmm. Must be the Queen! ;-)
>
Dave
> snip
> Funny, we have no English restaurants here. Could that mean something?
There are several in Seattle.
Dave
Chris Cook
Kareem <kst...@cyberport.com> wrote in message
news:80a0dj$rcf$1...@macaw.cyberport.com...
> Sorry, I'll keep our cars. Ours can carry cargo, yours can carry nothing
of
> any size including people. I don't drink, so you can keep the ale too.
> keep the Queen. We fought a war over that one and won. She's all yours!
i) Our cars have the fifth most powerful average engine capacities in the
world. No probs there.
ii) Ale. hmmm....
iii) Where there is no hardship, there is no invention, and thus the food is
fairly mundane.
Fair enough. I disagree with you there, Kareem, but its so much less fun
than disagreeing with News....
Chris Cook
>
> > > Why is Bill Gates putting his research facilities
> > > in England, if the USA is so bright?
> >
> > considerable abilties in Britain,
>
> We did invent computers!
What is the relevance of the nationality of the pioneers?
Did Holland gain from Fokker's inventions?
>
> > and that most often, it isn't Britain that
> > benefits from those abilties.
>
> You said it.
Do you just not think?
>
> > After all, the idea behind the Microsoft
> > research labs in Cambridge was that
> > they would be mixed in with the Cambridge
> > researchers, thus being able to benefit
> > from the newest University research, which is
> > comes a lot cheaper than Microsoft doing
> > the same work.
>
> They can do that in the USA, but the UK is where the inventiveness is more
> prevalent, so he wants to come here.
Grow up.
Chris Cook
Dave <NOSPAMd...@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:3828BD...@isomedia.com...
> News wrote:
> >
> > > But Mr. News, according to your other threads,
> > > the British are the most advanced people in
> > > the world, science, engineering, etc.
> >
> > That is so.
> >
> > > What do you have that we don't?
> >
>
>
I don't see that being possible...
Chris Cook
Fair dos. But you know what she meant.
Dave
> > News wrote:
> > >
> > > > But Mr. News, according to your other threads,
> > > > the British are the most advanced people in
> > > > the world, science, engineering, etc.
> > >
> > > That is so.
> > >
> > > > What do you have that we don't?
> > >
> > > We also have better ale than you.
> >
> > Used to be true, but not anymore.
> >
>
> I don't see that being possible...
RedHook brought in an English brewer to brew ale. He's damn good,
so 'better' is no longer true. Micro-breweries selling 'real ale' are
popular now.
Dave
Kareem
--
Kareem
Pax Vobiscum
Dave wrote in message <38298C...@isomedia.com>...
>Kareem wrote:
>> snip
>> Funny, we have no English restaurants here. Could that mean something?
>
Kareem
Chris Cook wrote in message <80c7vq$ib0$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
To quote another Chris Cook thread, "I don't see that being possible."
Kareem
Pax Vobiscum
ian cowie
Chris Cook <don...@beer.com> wrote in message
news:80c7t2$i96$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> Kareem <kst...@cyberport.com> wrote in message
> news:80a0dj$rcf$1...@macaw.cyberport.com...
> > Sorry, I'll keep our cars. Ours can carry cargo, yours can carry
nothing
> of
> > any size including people. I don't drink, so you can keep the ale too.
> > keep the Queen. We fought a war over that one and won. She's all
yours!
>
> i) Our cars have the fifth most powerful average engine capacities in the
> world. No probs there.
"our cars" Which cars are those then? German , French or Swedish.
> ii) Ale. hmmm....
> iii) Where there is no hardship, there is no invention, and thus the food
is
> fairly mundane.
>
> Fair enough. I disagree with you there, Kareem, but its so much less fun
> than disagreeing with News....
>
> >
> > --
> > Kareem
> > Pax Vobiscum
> > News wrote in message <807sq6$via$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > >> But Mr. News, according to your other threads,
> > >> the British are the most advanced people in
> > >> the world, science, engineering, etc.
> > >
> > >That is so.
> > >
> > >> What do you have that we don't?
> > >
Chris Cook
ian cowie <ic...@farclose1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:80h5ha$rk8$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Chris Cook <don...@beer.com> wrote in message
> news:80c7t2$i96$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> >
> > Kareem <kst...@cyberport.com> wrote in message
> > news:80a0dj$rcf$1...@macaw.cyberport.com...
> > > Sorry, I'll keep our cars. Ours can carry cargo, yours can carry
> nothing
> > of
> > > any size including people. I don't drink, so you can keep the ale
too.
> > > Funny, we have no English restaurants here. Could that mean
something?
> > You
> > > keep the Queen. We fought a war over that one and won. She's all
> yours!
> >
> > i) Our cars have the fifth most powerful average engine capacities in
the
> > world. No probs there.
>
> "our cars" Which cars are those then? German , French or Swedish.
>
>
I mean cars bought by the British.
Rabid Bee
>
> ian cowie <ic...@farclose1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:80h5ha$rk8$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Chris Cook <don...@beer.com> wrote in message
> > news:80c7t2$i96$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> > >
> > > Kareem <kst...@cyberport.com> wrote in message
> > > news:80a0dj$rcf$1...@macaw.cyberport.com...
> > > > Sorry, I'll keep our cars. Ours can carry cargo, yours can carry
> > nothing
> > > of
> > > > any size including people. I don't drink, so you can keep the ale
> too.
> > > > Funny, we have no English restaurants here. Could that mean
> something?
> > > You
> > > > keep the Queen. We fought a war over that one and won. She's all
> > yours!
> > >
> > > i) Our cars have the fifth most powerful average engine capacities in
> the
> > > world. No probs there.
> >
> > "our cars" Which cars are those then? German , French or Swedish.
> >
> >
>
> I mean cars bought by the British.
Oh! Ford's....:-)
Cheers, Alex
Bill Kinkaid
had to tell us that:
>Katherine Manson wrote:
>>
>> Cambridge is supposed to be a powerhouse that dominates the rest of the UK,
>> and is comparable to the Ivy League in the United States.
>
> The best science schools are at MIT, Caltech and Stanford. None of
>which are 'Ivy League'.
>
No, the best *technology* schools are MIT, Caltech and Stanford.
Technology /= science.
Bill in Vancouver
too old to be walking around with no shoes,
and too young to be walking around with no teeth
Adam
> > Perhaps we can then have the royal family stuffed? Oh, hang on, too
late!
>
> Do you mean they are not?
>
>
What!
Melissa
got through, we thought that we could have the royals stuffed, but realized
that they are pretty much stuffed already ;)
Chris Cook
Adam <ad...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:81pp44$3nd$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Welcome to the confused world of News.
Chris Cook
Melissa <mca...@pacific.net.au> wrote in message
news:81q4t4$o7r$1...@news1.mpx.com.au...
We understood. Unfortunately our resident Little Englander, News, didn't
understand...
Melissa
News
republic
> > got through, we thought that we could have the royals stuffed, but
> realized
> > that they are pretty much stuffed already ;)
>
> We understood. Unfortunately our resident Little
> Englander, News, didn't understand...
It's OK, this man is tiffing with his sheep.
ian cowie
News <evertonia@NOSPAM))evertonia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8215k8$olp$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
News
> > republic
> > > > got through, we thought that we could have the royals stuffed, but
> > > realized
> > > > that they are pretty much stuffed already ;)
> > >
> > > We understood. Unfortunately our resident Little
> > > Englander, News, didn't understand...
> >
> > It's OK, this man is tiffing with his sheep.
> >
> >
> NEWS has a bit of an ovine fixation.
I only eat sheep, unlike Mr Cook who emotional relationships.
Chris Cook
Thats a good use of the fluidity of our living language, creating a verb
like that - but I suggest you learn to use the traditional conventions of
English until you're more competent.
News
> > > > > > huh? Context was the Australian referendum for a republic-if
the
> > > > republic
> > > > > > got through, we thought that we could have the royals stuffed,
but
> > > > > realized
> > > > > > that they are pretty much stuffed already ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > We understood. Unfortunately our resident Little
> > > > > Englander, News, didn't understand...
> > > >
> > > > It's OK, this man is tiffing with his sheep.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > NEWS has a bit of an ovine fixation.
> >
> > I only eat sheep, unlike Mr Cook who emotional relationships.
> >
>
> Thats a good use of the fluidity of our living language, creating a verb
> like that - but I suggest you learn to use the traditional conventions of
> English until you're more competent.
I suggest that obtain therapy, over your ovine obsessions. I assume your
living language now has words like bar, bar in it.