for scotchmen...a modern affectation....
abelard
Scotchman (_________). Also 6 Scotcheman, 7 Sc. Scotsshman.
[f. Scotch a. + man.]
1. a. A man of Scottish nationality.
Formerly, the usual English name; the prevalent form used by Scotch
people was Scotsman. Scotsman is now the preferred form on both sides
of the border (see small-type note s.v. Scotch a. and n.3).
1570 Levins Manip. 21/3 Scotcheman, Scotus.
1597 P. Lowe Chirurgerie title, The Whole Covrse of Chirurgerie...
Compiled by Peter Lowe Scotchman.
1632 Massinger City Madam ii. ii, May the Great Fiend, booted &
spurr’d With a Sithe at his girdle, as the Scotchman saies, Ride
headlong down her throat.
1671 Fraser Polichron. (S.H.S.) 491 After the peace he went up to Pole
with other Scotssh~men.
1706 Phillips (ed. Kersey), Scots or Scotch-men, the People of
Scotland, a part of Great Britain.
1763 Johnson in Boswell (1791) I. 231 The noblest prospect which a
Scotch~man ever sees is the high-road that leads him to England!
1773 Macpherson Ossian’s Poems (1806) I. Dissert. 37 A Scotchman,
tolerably conversant in his own language, understands Irish
composition.
1820 Scott Monast. Introd. Ep., ‘Then,’ said I, ‘you are a native
Scotchman..?’ ‘Not so, answered the monk; ‘I am a Scotchman by
extraction only.’
1821 Lamb Elia i. Imperf. Sympathies, I have been trying all my life
to like Scotchmen and am obliged to desist from the experiment in
despair.
1977 K. M. E. Murray Caught in Web of Words xi. 209 For a Scotchman
James was certainly extraordinarily lacking in hard-headedness.
Comb.
1833 L. Ritchie Wand. by Loire 26 Determining..to be exceedingly
prudent and Scotchman-like.
b. (Also Flying Scotchman.) A familiar name for the Scotch express
(London to Edinburgh) on the Great Northern and on the London &
North-Western Railway. Cf. Irishman b (b) and Scotsman b.
1873 J. Blackwood Let. 6 Jan. in Geo. Eliot Lett. (1956) V. 365 ‘The
Flying Scotchman’, the stoker’s name for the train that goes between
London and Edinburgh in little more than 9 hours!
1874 R. C. Rapier Signals Railw. 56 On arriving at King’s Cross, the
Flying Scotchman had not yet departed.
[1879 Flying Scotsman: see Scotsman b.]
1881 Reynolds Engine-driving Life 59 The same express-men..were
proceeding down a bank..at about 3 a.m. in summer with the
‘Scotchman’.
1885 G. Dolby Dickens as I knew him 33 A railway carriage which was
being dragged along at the rate of fifty miles an hour by the ‘Flying
Scotchman’.
1892 Strand Mag. Feb. 195 This Scotch Express (significantly named
‘The Flying Scotchman’) is believed to be the fastest train in the
world.
1913 D. H. Lawrence Sons & Lovers vii. 165 You should see the Flying
Scotchman come through.
c. A travelling draper or pedlar: see Scotch a. 1 b. dial. (See
examples in Eng. Dial. Dict.)
1719 T. Marchant Jrnl. 10 June in Sussex Arch. Coll. (1873) XXV. 184
In all 15s. 9d., to John Gracie, a Scotchman, for M. Balcombe.
1793 C. Smith Old Manor House I. vi. 138, I had not enough money..to
buy my new cotton gown, when Alexander Macgill the Scotchman called
here.
1851 Mayhew Lond. Labour I. 381 Mother, here’s the Tallyman, Mother,
here’s the Scotchman.
d. Scotchman hugging a Creole, a West Indian name for various species
of Clusia.
1835 M. Scott Tom Cringle xiv, Do you see that Scotch~man hugging the
Creole?
1889 Boston (Mass.) Jrnl. 25 May 6/6 One more queer tree is the wild
fig, familiarly called ‘Scotchman hugging a Creole’.
e. A New Zealand name for a smaller kind of the prickly bushy grass
called ‘Spaniard’ (Aciphylla colensoi).
1895 W. S. Roberts Southland in 1856, 39 (Morris) As we neared the
hills speargrass of the smaller kind, known as ‘Scotchmen’, abounded,
and although not so strong and sharp-pointed as the ‘Spaniard’, would
not have made a comfortable seat.
2. Naut. A piece of hide, wood, or iron, etc. placed over a rope to
prevent its being chafed.
1841 R. H. Dana Seaman’s Man., Scotchman, a large batten placed over
the turnings-in of rigging.
1850 R. G. Cumming Hunter’s Life S. Afr. (1902) 1/2 On the top of this
are placed coarse Kaffir mats made of reeds, which act as a Scotchman
(to use a seafaring phrase), to keep the waggon sail, which is of
stout canvas, from chafing.
c1860 H. Stuart Seaman’s Catech. 83 A Scotchman should be made of
leather,..to allow the new skin to harden.
1882 Nares Seamanship (ed. 6) 68 How is the lower rigging protected
from being cut by the futtock rigging? By lashing iron Scotchmen on
the shrouds.
3. S. African. A florin. (See quot. 1879.)
1879 R. J. Atcherley Trip Boërland 55 In dealing with the Kafirs, I
frequently heard the term ‘Scotchman’ applied to a two-shilling piece:
and upon enquiry was informed that an enterprising gentleman of that
nationality having once passed a large number of florins to the Kafirs
as half-crown pieces, the latter had ever since christened the florin
‘Scotchman’.
1887 Rider Haggard Jess x, Jantjé spat upon the ‘Scotchman’, as the
natives in that part of Africa [Transvaal] call a two-shilling piece.
4. U.S. The ‘Scotch duck’, Charitonetta (or Bucephala) albeola.
1895 in Funk’s Stand. Dict.
5. colloq. A Scotch fir.
1901 ‘Lucas Malet’ Sir R. Calmady vi. vii, ‘What shall we do with it
[a piece of land]?’ ‘Oh, plant,’ she said. ‘With the ubiquitous
Scotchman?’ ‘It wouldn’t carry any~thing else, except along the
boundaries.’
######
Scotch (_____), a. and n.3 Also 7 Scot’sh.
[Contracted var. of Scottish.
The three forms of the adj., Scotch, Scottish, Scots, are still
current, with some difference in use, which, however, is somewhat
unsettled. Down to the middle of the 16th c. the only form used in
southern English was Scottish; but in the dialect of Scotland (and in
that of the north of England in the 14th and 15th c.) the form was
Scottis (cf. Inglis = English), subsequently contracted to Scots. So
far as our quotations show, the contraction of Scottish into Scotch is
not recorded before 1570 (in the compound Scotchman), though the
colloquial pronunciation which it represents may well be much older;
instances of Scotch cap, Scotch jig occur in 159199, but the adj. did
not become common in literature until the second half of the 17th c.
From that time until the 19th c. Scotch has been the prevailing form
in England, though Scottish has always been in use as a more formal
synonym. In Scotland, the authors who wrote in dialect (down to Ramsay
and Fergusson early in the 18th c.) used Scots, while those who
anglicized adopted the form Scottish. But before the end of the 18th
c. Scotch had been adopted into the northern vernacular; it is used
regularly by Burns, and subsequently by Scott; still later, it appears
even in official language in the title of the ‘Scotch Education
Office’. Since the mid 19th c. there has been in Scotland a growing
tendency to discard this form altogether, Scottish, or less frequently
Scots, being substituted. At the beginning of the 20th c., while in
England Scotch was the ordinary colloquial word, the literary usage
prefered Scottish in applications relating to the nation or the
country at large or its institutions or characteristics. Thus it was
usual to speak of ‘Scottish literature’, ‘Scottish history’, ‘the
Scottish character’, ‘a Scottish lawyer’, ‘the Scottish border’. On
the other hand, it would have sounded affected to say ‘a Scottish
girl’, ‘a Scottish gardener.’ Although ‘the Scottish dialect’ is now
the usual designation, it is seldom that Scottish is used as a n.
instead of Scotch. Recent usage favours Scots in ‘Scots law’, and it
is now almost universal in historical references to money, as ‘a pound
Scots’.In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in
England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman’s
supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such
as ‘Scotch mist’, ‘Scotch whisky’) Scottish (less frequently Scots) is
now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland
the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage
(1965)).]
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halmyre
@abelard.org says...
>
Let's cut to the fucking chase.
> Scots?.In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in
> England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman?s
> supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such
> as ?Scotch mist?, ?Scotch whisky?) Scottish (less frequently Scots) is
> now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland
> the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage
> (1965)).]
>
Case closed, let's move on.
--
Halmyre
abelard
wrote:
that's what is called 'selective quoting'!
alang
wrote:
>In article <c09ah61gql7mm7u9j...@4ax.com>, abelard3
You have no respect for tradition
Jeff
Even Rabbie Burns used the word Scotch when referring to things and
people other than whisky.
Jeff
Jellore
> On 25/12/2010 11:43, alang wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:19:40 -0000, Halmyre<nos...@this.address>
> > wrote:
>
> >> @abelard.org says...
>
> >> Let's cut to the fucking chase.
>
> >>> Scots?.In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in
> >>> England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman?s
> >>> supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such
> >>> as ?Scotch mist?, ?Scotch whisky?) Scottish (less frequently Scots) is
> >>> now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland
> >>> the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage
> >>> (1965)).]
>
> >> Case closed, let's move on.
>
> > You have no respect for tradition
>
> Even Rabbie Burns used the word Scotch when referring to things and
> people other than whisky.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Might come as a bit of a shock to you Jeff but Burns lived some time
ago.
abelard
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <c09ah61gql7mm7u9j...@4ax.com>, abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>
>> Scotsman is now the preferred form on both sides
>>of the border
>
>>.In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in
>>England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman’s
>>supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such
>>as ‘Scotch mist’, ‘Scotch whisky’) Scottish (less frequently Scots) is
>>now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland
>>the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage
>>(1965)).]
>>
>
>Thank you for your confirmation that Scots is the preferred designation,
>and on both sides of the border.
preferred by who
>You must like wasting your time with copy-and-paste as much as Robert.
>How alike you are :-(
it was a terrible chore...
or perhaps 'sour grapes' may be a better characterisation....
if you have any grapes that near to the arctic...
abelard
you can be a scottie just for christmas!
alang
But do these whinging semi literate scotchmen recognise that?
alang
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <if4lgs$e1q$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Jeff <je...@jsystems.com>
>writes
>Yes, yes, we've had this puerile claim before now from people like you
>who have failed to comprehend the first words of the quote above: "In
>the 20th c.". Now look up when Burns lived.
In that case you will no doubt stop having Burns night suppers and
only quotr from 20th C literary sources.
abelard
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <ltpbh619f8b6l2u3p...@4ax.com>, abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 07:59:10 +0000, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <c09ah61gql7mm7u9j...@4ax.com>, abelard
>>><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>>
>>>> Scotsman is now the preferred form on both sides
>>>>of the border
>>>
>>>>.In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in
>>>>England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman’s
>>>>supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such
>>>>as ‘Scotch mist’, ‘Scotch whisky’) Scottish (less frequently Scots) is
>>>>now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland
>>>>the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage
>>>>(1965)).]
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you for your confirmation that Scots is the preferred designation,
>>>and on both sides of the border.
>>
>>preferred by who
>>
>Tut tut. Preferred by *whom*. But then one can't expect grammatically
>correct English from any Englishman nowadays.
as in 'whom prefers this'?
>>>You must like wasting your time with copy-and-paste as much as Robert.
>>>How alike you are :-(
>>
>>it was a terrible chore...
>>
>So terrible that you forgot to give your sources.
i'll give you the source is if you don't recognise it
>>or perhaps 'sour grapes' may be a better characterisation....
>>if you have any grapes that near to the arctic...
>>
>More ignorance. I picked a fine crop of both white and red grapes last
>autumn.
i blame global warming...
Ala
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:ltpbh619f8b6l2u3p...@4ax.com...
>
> or perhaps 'sour grapes' may be a better characterisation....
> if you have any grapes that near to the arctic...
US are now regulating sour grapes
In Sunday-evening surprise, Senate passes food-safety legislation
By Alexander Bolton - 12/19/10 07:55 PM ET
The Senate unexpectedly approved food-safety legislation by voice vote
Sunday evening, rescuing a bill that floated in limbo for weeks because of a
clerical error.
The Senate passed the Food Safety and Modernization Act on Nov. 30 by a vote
of 73-25. But the bill was later invalidated by a technical objection
because it was a revenue-raising measure that did not originate in the
House - Senate staff had failed to substitute the food-safety language into
a House-originated bill.
A coalition of groups supporting the bill sent a letter Sunday to Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell
(Ky.) calling for action on food safety.
>
alang
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <ehtbh6lutgqrcs23k...@4ax.com>, alang
><inv...@invalid.net> writes
>You are full of non sequiturs today, aren't you?
>
>>You have no respect for tradition
>
>Respecting tradition doesn't have to include freezing a language in the
>form it was in 200 or more years ago.
But it doesn't involve an embargo on the use of such language
>For example, I haven't noticed you
>writing only in Shakespeare's English, or even quoting him.
Indeed you haven't noticed
>You do know
>who Shakespeare was, I suppose.
Francis Bacon?
alang
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <8ftbh69hsdspeeu6m...@4ax.com>, alang
><inv...@invalid.net> writes
>There are no such people. You are merely exposing your own ignorance.
Denial is not a river in Egypt
abelard
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <503ch6pm2pe9lt8jn...@4ax.com>, abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 15:05:41 +0000, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <ltpbh619f8b6l2u3p...@4ax.com>, abelard
>>><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 07:59:10 +0000, Malcolm
>>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <c09ah61gql7mm7u9j...@4ax.com>, abelard
>>>>><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>> Scotsman is now the preferred form on both sides
>>>>>>of the border
>>>>>
>>>>>>.In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in
>>>>>>England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman’s
>>>>>>supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such
>>>>>>as ‘Scotch mist’, ‘Scotch whisky’) Scottish (less frequently Scots) is
>>>>>>now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland
>>>>>>the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage
>>>>>>(1965)).]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thank you for your confirmation that Scots is the preferred designation,
>>>>>and on both sides of the border.
>>>>
>>>>preferred by who
>>>>
>>>Tut tut. Preferred by *whom*. But then one can't expect grammatically
>>>correct English from any Englishman nowadays.
>>
>>as in 'whom prefers this'?
>>
>No, as in the difference between the correct and incorrect use of the
>subjective and objective cases.
a bit like scotchmen then....
you scotchmen are such mindless authoritarians
>Are you a product of an English education, which you could use as an
>excuse, I suppose?
>
>>>>>You must like wasting your time with copy-and-paste as much as Robert.
>>>>>How alike you are :-(
>>>>
>>>>it was a terrible chore...
>>>>
>>>So terrible that you forgot to give your sources.
>>
>>i'll give you the source is if you don't recognise it
>>
>More illiteracy: "I'll give you the source is".
so you already recognise the source....
because of your education of course
>Are you a product of an English education, which you could use as an
>excuse, I suppose?
>
>>>>or perhaps 'sour grapes' may be a better characterisation....
>>>>if you have any grapes that near to the arctic...
>>>>
>>>More ignorance. I picked a fine crop of both white and red grapes last
>>>autumn.
>>
>>i blame global warming...
>>
>What, as the reason for you making an assumption based on ignorance?
all assumptions are founded on ignorance or they wouldn't be
assumptions
abelard
wrote:
should keep the competition down
abelard
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <7f7ch6hpeomhgind4...@4ax.com>, abelard
>There are no such people as "scotchmen", while I am happy to accept your
>admission that your education was inadequate. It's been obvious here for
>a long time.
>
>>>Are you a product of an English education, which you could use as an
>>>excuse, I suppose?
>>>
>>>>>>>You must like wasting your time with copy-and-paste as much as Robert.
>>>>>>>How alike you are :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>it was a terrible chore...
>>>>>>
>>>>>So terrible that you forgot to give your sources.
>>>>
>>>>i'll give you the source is if you don't recognise it
>>>>
>>>More illiteracy: "I'll give you the source is".
>>
>>so you already recognise the source....
>>
>I was pointing out the grammatical howler in your sentence. Perhaps you
>are still unaware of it.
>
>>because of your education of course
>>
>>>Are you a product of an English education, which you could use as an
>>>excuse, I suppose?
>>>
>>>>>>or perhaps 'sour grapes' may be a better characterisation....
>>>>>>if you have any grapes that near to the arctic...
>>>>>>
>>>>>More ignorance. I picked a fine crop of both white and red grapes last
>>>>>autumn.
>>>>
>>>>i blame global warming...
>>>>
>>>What, as the reason for you making an assumption based on ignorance?
>>
>>all assumptions are founded on ignorance or they wouldn't be
>> assumptions
>>
>What utter rubbish.
>
>I don't know what education you received, but, based on the evidence of
>your illiteracy as exposed by your posts here, a reasonable assumption
>is that it was inadequate.
that's an assumption
abelard
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <5uach698et1uggf8o...@4ax.com>, abelard
>Gosh, well *done*. Did you work that out because I used the word
>"assumption" in the sentence? That's so clever of you.
>
>As my assumption is based on evidence, it contradicts your claim that
>"all assumptions are founded on ignorance".
evidence isn't assumptions
assumptions isn't evidence...
you've lost track...unsurprisingly in view of the various evidences
you display...
apparently
you are a scotchman whom is locked in a box...
alang
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <g77ch6h1st6aoa8o6...@4ax.com>, alang
>No, but when an authoritative dictionary states that a word has been
>falling into disuse in the last century,
It is only a claim the word is falling into disuse.
It has common usage in the north of england and southern scotland.
> resurrecting it solely to troll
>this newsgroup is pathetically childish, which we expect from Robert,
>but also it seems from his acolytes.
Not so. The word was in common use in nrthern england and southern
scotland until the late 1970s when there appeared to be a concerted
campaign by some people to get the word banned. Why they did it is
puzzling.
abelard
>Not so. The word was in common use in nrthern england and southern
>scotland until the late 1970s when there appeared to be a concerted
>campaign by some people to get the word banned. Why they did it is
>puzzling.
as stated...affectation
regards
abelard
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <sbfch6tj43nvv6646...@4ax.com>, abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 18:10:00 +0000, Malcolm
>>>As my assumption is based on evidence, it contradicts your claim that
>>>"all assumptions are founded on ignorance".
>>
>>evidence isn't assumptions
>>assumptions isn't evidence...
>>
>Hmm, is English your first language?
>
>If not, then I suppose you have some excuse for those extraordinary
>statements, but if it is, then you've just provided more evidence for my
>assumption.
>
>Neither of your two statements make sense, while the second is also
>grammatically wrong.
stick to your grammar rules
elsewhere you're out of your depth
which makes you boring....
at this time of year you should be entertaining...not boring...
go drink a bottle of scotch
>>you've lost track...unsurprisingly in view of the various evidences
>> you display...
>>apparently
>>
>Ah, the use of the plural "evidences" strongly suggests that English is
>not your first language. That word is quite commonly used by people who
>are not native English speakers who wrongly, if quite naturally, think
>that "evidence" has a plural form with an 's' on the end.
>
>If English isn't your first language, then it explains pretty much
>everything about your writing here, though not your antipathy towards
>the Scots and Scotland, but if it is, then you need help!
>
>>you are a scotchman whom is locked in a box...
>>
>Another sentence without meaning.
>
>And tell me, does your computer keyboard have a Caps key?
it has 2
alang
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <1kgch6tl93k4mjhkm...@4ax.com>, alang
><inv...@invalid.net> writes
>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:16:25 +0000, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <g77ch6h1st6aoa8o6...@4ax.com>, alang
>>><inv...@invalid.net> writes
>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 15:02:12 +0000, Malcolm
>>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <ehtbh6lutgqrcs23k...@4ax.com>, alang
>>>>><inv...@invalid.net> writes
>>>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:55:00 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <if4lgs$e1q$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Jeff <je...@jsystems.com>
>>>>>>>writes
>>>>>>>>On 25/12/2010 11:43, alang wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:19:40 -0000, Halmyre<nos...@this.address>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In article<c09ah61gql7mm7u9j...@4ax.com>, abelard3
>>>>>>>>>> @abelard.org says...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's cut to the fucking chase.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Scots?.In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in
>>>>>>>>>>> England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman?s
>>>>>>>>>>> supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such
>>>>>>>>>>> as ?Scotch mist?, ?Scotch whisky?) Scottish (less frequently
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland
>>>>>>>>>>> the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage
>>>>>>>>>>> (1965)).]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Case closed, let's move on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have no respect for tradition
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even Rabbie Burns used the word Scotch when referring to things and
>>>>>>>>people other than whisky.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, yes, we've had this puerile claim before now from people like you
>>>>>>>who have failed to comprehend the first words of the quote above: "In
>>>>>>>the 20th c.". Now look up when Burns lived.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In that case you will no doubt stop having Burns night suppers and
>>>>>>only quotr from 20th C literary sources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>You are full of non sequiturs today, aren't you?
>>>>>
>>>>>>You have no respect for tradition
>>>>>
>>>>>Respecting tradition doesn't have to include freezing a language in the
>>>>>form it was in 200 or more years ago.
>>>>
>>>>But it doesn't involve an embargo on the use of such language
>>>>
>>>No, but when an authoritative dictionary states that a word has been
>>>falling into disuse in the last century,
>>
>>It is only a claim the word is falling into disuse.
>>It has common usage in the north of england and southern scotland.
>>
>Well now, there's an interesting claim from you. Would you care to
>produce some evidence for it?
>
I only go on my own knowledge of living in northern england all my
life and having relatives in southern scotland too. I never heard of
this claim that the term 'scotch' was wrong until the late 70s. Even
my scotch colleagues were only peripherally aware of the claim. My
wife's late father used scotch, scots and scottish as he chose. He
served for many years in a Scottish regiment.
In fact the only people who seem to complain are those on usenet and
the green ink brigade who write to the Times.
HardySpicer
RH
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 18:10:00 +0000, Malcolm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <5uach698et1uggf8oojr55luj07hsr0...@4ax.com>, abelard
> ><abela...@abelard.org> writes
> >>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:22:19 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >>>In article <7f7ch6hpeomhgind4l6h9ff6v0lmsbm...@4ax.com>, abelard
> >>><abela...@abelard.org> writes
> >>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 16:09:40 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >>>>>In article <503ch6pm2pe9lt8jnd7jhbmkamoqc2t...@4ax.com>, abelard
> >>>>><abela...@abelard.org> writes
> >>>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 15:05:41 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >>>>>>>In article <ltpbh619f8b6l2u3prm80rndj8a29sv...@4ax.com>, abelard
> >>>>>>><abela...@abelard.org> writes
> >>>>>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 07:59:10 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >>>>>>>>>In article <c09ah61gql7mm7u9jg7dvir0mm7jj29...@4ax.com>, abelard
> >>>>>>>>><abela...@abelard.org> writes
A Jock-in-a-box you mean? RH
RH
> In article <sbfch6tj43nvv66469fe1t75euash7g...@4ax.com>, abelard
> <abela...@abelard.org> writes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 18:10:00 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >>In article <5uach698et1uggf8oojr55luj07hsr0...@4ax.com>, abelard
> >>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:22:19 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >>>>In article <7f7ch6hpeomhgind4l6h9ff6v0lmsbm...@4ax.com>, abelard
> >>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 16:09:40 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >>>>>>In article <503ch6pm2pe9lt8jnd7jhbmkamoqc2t...@4ax.com>, abelard
> >>>>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 15:05:41 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >>>>>>>>In article <ltpbh619f8b6l2u3prm80rndj8a29sv...@4ax.com>, abelard
> >>>>>>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 07:59:10 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >>>>>>>>>>In article <c09ah61gql7mm7u9jg7dvir0mm7jj29...@4ax.com>, abelard
>
> If not, then I suppose you have some excuse for those extraordinary
> statements, but if it is, then you've just provided more evidence for my
> assumption.
>
> Neither of your two statements make sense, while the second is also
> grammatically wrong.
>
> > you display...
> >apparently
>
> not your first language. That word is quite commonly used by people who
> are not native English speakers who wrongly, if quite naturally, think
> that "evidence" has a plural form with an 's' on the end.
>
> If English isn't your first language, then it explains pretty much
> everything about your writing here, though not your antipathy towards
> the Scots and Scotland, but if it is, then you need help!
>
>
>
> And tell me, does your computer keyboard have a Caps key?
>
> Malcolm
You really must make allowances for a 1947 vintage valve computer....
RH
RH
> In article <fg7ch6l9a8jrf0m46hvrgikegd5u12i...@4ax.com>, alang
> <inva...@invalid.net> writes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 15:03:31 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >>In article <8ftbh69hsdspeeu6m5t5cvopkcrbn9g...@4ax.com>, alang
> >><inva...@invalid.net> writes
> >>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:45:28 +0000, Jeff <j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>On 25/12/2010 11:43, alang wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:19:40 -0000, Halmyre<nos...@this.address>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> @abelard.org says...
>
> >>>>>> Let's cut to the fucking chase.
>
> >>>>>>> Scots?.In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in
> >>>>>>> England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman?s
> >>>>>>> supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such
> >>>>>>> as ?Scotch mist?, ?Scotch whisky?) Scottish (less frequently Scots) is
> >>>>>>> now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland
> >>>>>>> the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage
> >>>>>>> (1965)).]
>
> >>>>>> Case closed, let's move on.
>
> >>>>> You have no respect for tradition
>
> >>>> Even Rabbie Burns used the word Scotch when referring to things and
> >>>>people other than whisky.
>
> >>>But do these whinging semi literate scotchmen recognise that?
>
> >>There are no such people. You are merely exposing your own ignorance.
>
> >Denial is not a river in Egypt
>
>
> --
> Malcolm
Ah, I see we have Malcolm Nomates posting on Xmas Day.... RH
RH
Ah, I see we have Hardly-Sentient Nomates posting on Xmas Day.... RH
harry
Angus McCoatup
Scotchmen can't. Their bits are too cold under those skirts
>
>Hardy
more like floppy
alang
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <fglch6hid42v6738h...@4ax.com>, alang
><inv...@invalid.net> writes
>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:55:48 +0000, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <1kgch6tl93k4mjhkm...@4ax.com>, alang
>>><inv...@invalid.net> writes
>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:16:25 +0000, Malcolm
>>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <g77ch6h1st6aoa8o6...@4ax.com>, alang
>>>>><inv...@invalid.net> writes
>>>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 15:02:12 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <ehtbh6lutgqrcs23k...@4ax.com>, alang
>>>>>>><inv...@invalid.net> writes
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:55:00 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article <if4lgs$e1q$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Jeff <je...@jsystems.com>
>>>>>>>>>writes
>>>>>>>>>>On 25/12/2010 11:43, alang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:19:40 -0000, Halmyre<nos...@this.address>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article<c09ah61gql7mm7u9j...@4ax.com>, abelard3
>>>>>>>>>>>> @abelard.org says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's cut to the fucking chase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scots?.In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman?s
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>collocations, (such
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as ?Scotch mist?, ?Scotch whisky?) Scottish (less frequently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>You appear to have snipped part of my last message which was asking you
>to make up your mind whether you were claiming, as you did above, that
>the word "has common usage" or as you then stated (and have snipped)
>that it "was in common use in northern england and southern scotland
>until the late 1970s when there appeared to be a concerted campaign by
>some people to get the word banned."
I'm not about to pander to your pedantry
>
>I have not seen your evidence that there was a "concerted campaign" and
>I can't say I've ever seen a letter about the word to The Times. Still
>at least I note that your grandfather served in a Scottish regiment.
I note you cannot read english
abelard
wrote:
>A Jock-in-a-box you mean? RH
in cricket it's called a jock box
abelard
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <fdkch6le2df2jb6k4...@4ax.com>, abelard
><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:06:05 +0000, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <sbfch6tj43nvv6646...@4ax.com>, abelard
>>><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 18:10:00 +0000, Malcolm
>>
>>>>>As my assumption is based on evidence, it contradicts your claim that
>>>>>"all assumptions are founded on ignorance".
>>>>
>>>>evidence isn't assumptions
>>>>assumptions isn't evidence...
>>>>
>>>Hmm, is English your first language?
>>>
>>>If not, then I suppose you have some excuse for those extraordinary
>>>statements, but if it is, then you've just provided more evidence for my
>>>assumption.
>>>
>>>Neither of your two statements make sense, while the second is also
>>>grammatically wrong.
>>
>>stick to your grammar rules
>>
>They aren't mine,
then leave them alone
> they refer to the English language and help in both
>the writing and the understanding of it.
so nothing to do with the scotch language
>>elsewhere you're out of your depth
>>which makes you boring....
>>
>An untrue statement.
don't worry so, you'll only get upset
>>at this time of year you should be entertaining...not boring...
>>
>>go drink a bottle of scotch
>>
>Are you offering to supply it?
you are clearly a scotchman
>>>>you've lost track...unsurprisingly in view of the various evidences
>>>> you display...
>>>>apparently
>>>>
>>>Ah, the use of the plural "evidences" strongly suggests that English is
>>>not your first language. That word is quite commonly used by people who
>>>are not native English speakers who wrongly, if quite naturally, think
>>>that "evidence" has a plural form with an 's' on the end.
>>>
>>>If English isn't your first language, then it explains pretty much
>>>everything about your writing here, though not your antipathy towards
>>>the Scots and Scotland, but if it is, then you need help!
>>>
>No response. How very telling.
another dumb assumption
>>>>you are a scotchman whom is locked in a box...
>>>>
>>>Another sentence without meaning.
>>>
>>>And tell me, does your computer keyboard have a Caps key?
>>
>>it has 2
>>
>Which you don't use. Tell me, is this out of perversity or a lack of
>fingers?
lack of fingers and a surfeit of aesthetics...
though there is an on/off caps key as well...are you using an abacus
abelard
<gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
indeed...i see you clearly...
abelard
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Not at all. At least I got a reaction this time, which was even more
>telling!
it's strange that you losers so often start congratulating yourselves
when you lose...
Custos Custodum
news:g77ch6h1st6aoa8o6...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 15:02:12 +0000, Malcolm
> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <ehtbh6lutgqrcs23k...@4ax.com>, alang
>><inv...@invalid.net> writes
>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:55:00 +0000, Malcolm
>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article <if4lgs$e1q$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Jeff
>>>><je...@jsystems.com> writes
>>>>>On 25/12/2010 11:43, alang wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:19:40 -0000, Halmyre<nos...@this.address>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article<c09ah61gql7mm7u9j...@4ax.com>, abelard3
>>>>>>> @abelard.org says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's cut to the fucking chase.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scots?.In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into
>>>>>>>> disuse in England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to
>>>>>>>> the Scotsman?s supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed
>>>>>>>> collocations, (such as ?Scotch mist?, ?Scotch whisky?) Scottish
>>>>>>>> (less frequently Scots) is now the usual adjective, and to
>>>>>>>> designate the inhabitants of Scotland the pl. n. Scots is
>>>>>>>> preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage (1965)).]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Case closed, let's move on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no respect for tradition
>>>>>
>>>>> Even Rabbie Burns used the word Scotch when referring to things
>>>>> and
>>>>>people other than whisky.
>>>>>
>>>>Yes, yes, we've had this puerile claim before now from people like
>>>>you who have failed to comprehend the first words of the quote
>>>>above: "In the 20th c.". Now look up when Burns lived.
>>>
>>>In that case you will no doubt stop having Burns night suppers and
>>>only quotr from 20th C literary sources.
>>>
>>You are full of non sequiturs today, aren't you?
>>
>>>You have no respect for tradition
>>
>>Respecting tradition doesn't have to include freezing a language in
>>the form it was in 200 or more years ago.
>
> But it doesn't involve an embargo on the use of such language
You might want to check out the history of the word 'cunt'.
Custos Custodum
news:ltpbh619f8b6l2u3p...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 07:59:10 +0000, Malcolm
> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <c09ah61gql7mm7u9j...@4ax.com>, abelard
>><abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>
>>> Scotsman is now the preferred form on both sides
>>>of the border
>>
>>>.In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in
>>>England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman�s
>>>supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such
>>>as �Scotch mist�, �Scotch whisky�) Scottish (less frequently Scots)
is
>>>now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland
>>>the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage
>>>(1965)).]
>>>
>>
>>Thank you for your confirmation that Scots is the preferred
designation,
>>and on both sides of the border.
>
> preferred by who
'Whom'. Preferred by those who do not deliberately go about hoping to
cause offence. It's interesting that the worst offenders are those with
delusions of intellectual adequacy, like yourself and Henderson.
>
>>You must like wasting your time with copy-and-paste as much as Robert.
>>How alike you are :-(
>
> it was a terrible chore...
>
> or perhaps 'sour grapes' may be a better characterisation....
> if you have any grapes that near to the arctic...
>
We're expecting a bumper crop of 'Eiswein'. That is, if the 'first
frost' ever comes to an end. Presumably the only grapes you ever see are
the ones hanging out of your boyfriend's arse.
alang
What has a nautical splice to do with scotchmen?
RH
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 16:52:51 +0000 (UTC), Custos Custodum
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >>>In article <ehtbh6lutgqrcs23kkmgn2p37pasqe4...@4ax.com>, alang
> >>><inva...@invalid.net> writes
> >>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:55:00 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >>>>>In article <if4lgs$e1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Jeff
> >>>>><j...@jsystems.com> writes
> >>>>>>On 25/12/2010 11:43, alang wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:19:40 -0000, Halmyre<nos...@this.address>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
>
It's the frocks they wear as their national dress. "Hello sailor".
RH
RH
> <anywhere...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >Ah, I see we have Malcolm Nomates posting on Xmas Day.... RH
>
'course you are, Malcolm, 'course you are. That's why you posted to an
ng when you had them all round you on Christmas day.... RH
How about you, Robert, have you ever
> had a "mate"?
>
Sigh. AS I have pointed out before, only a halfwit gives out personal
details in an ng which could affect others... RH
> --
> Malcolm
GM
As opposed to your white leggings with bells round the knees. Or do
you still consider woad to be your national dress?
LOL
GMc
de Graeme
A very quick Google search reveals that you posted several messages on
Xmas day last year, and indeed the year before. Are we entitled to
draw any conclusions about your social status from that fact?
dG
RH
> <anywhere...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >On Dec 26, 11:27 am, Malcolm <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <c3ee9987-2eef-42dc-9ab7-56707f943...@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, RH
> >> <anywhere...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >> >Ah, I see we have Malcolm Nomates posting on Xmas Day.... RH
>
> >> I'm married with children, Robert.
>
> >'course you are, Malcolm, 'course you are.
>
>
> > That's why you posted to an
> >ng when you had them all round you on Christmas day.... RH
>
> around you on Christmas day".
>
> > How about you, Robert, have you ever
> >> had a "mate"?
>
> >Sigh. AS I have pointed out before, only a halfwit gives out personal
> >details in an ng which could affect others... RH
>
>
> --
> Malcolm
Poor old Malcolm Nomates projecting again. I can just imagine him on
Xmas day, hunched in his bedsit, dressed in the kilt Thomas Rawlinson
invented as a joke, heating up his roast haggis with all the trimmings
and pretending desperately that he is a Scotchman.... RH
RH
Nope. Next! RH
de Graeme
"RH" <anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c671a69-68d9-4562...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
*******
That's a curious thimg to say since, purely from reading your Usenet posts
over the years, I know more about you than I know about anyone else on this
group. What do you think we can deduce from that?
dG
de Graeme
Nope. Next! RH
****
No? So why are you entitled to draw conclusions on Malcolm's social status
from the same information?
dG
Replying through Scot.Politics
charlie6
> In article <7f7ch6hpeomhgind4l6h9ff6v0lmsbm...@4ax.com>, abelard
> <abela...@abelard.org> writes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 16:09:40 +0000, Malcolm
> ><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>In article <503ch6pm2pe9lt8jnd7jhbmkamoqc2t...@4ax.com>, abelard
> >><abela...@abelard.org> writes
> >>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 15:05:41 +0000, Malcolm
> >>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>In article <ltpbh619f8b6l2u3prm80rndj8a29sv...@4ax.com>, abelard
> >>>><abela...@abelard.org> writes
> >>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 07:59:10 +0000, Malcolm
> >>>>><Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>In article <c09ah61gql7mm7u9jg7dvir0mm7jj29...@4ax.com>, abelard
> >>>>>><abela...@abelard.org> writes
>
> >>>>>>> Scotsman is now the preferred form on both sides
> >>>>>>>of the border
>
> >>>>>>>supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such
> >>>>>>>now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland
> >>>>>>>the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage
> >>>>>>>(1965)).]
>
> >>>>>>and on both sides of the border.
>
> >>>>>preferred by who
>
> >>>>correct English from any Englishman nowadays.
>
> >>>as in 'whom prefers this'?
>
> >>No, as in the difference between the correct and incorrect use of the
> >>subjective and objective cases.
>
> >a bit like scotchmen then....
> >you scotchmen are such mindless authoritarians
>
> There are no such people as "scotchmen", while I am happy to accept your
> admission that your education was inadequate. It's been obvious here for
> a long time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Are you a product of an English education, which you could use as an
> >>excuse, I suppose?
>
> >>>>>>You must like wasting your time with copy-and-paste as much as Robert.
> >>>>>>How alike you are :-(
>
> >>>>>it was a terrible chore...
>
>
> >>>i'll give you the source is if you don't recognise it
>
> >>More illiteracy: "I'll give you the source is".
>
> >so you already recognise the source....
>
> I was pointing out the grammatical howler in your sentence. Perhaps you
> are still unaware of it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >because of your education of course
>
> >>Are you a product of an English education, which you could use as an
> >>excuse, I suppose?
>
> >>>>>or perhaps 'sour grapes' may be a better characterisation....
> >>>>>if you have any grapes that near to the arctic...
>
> >>>>autumn.
>
> >>>i blame global warming...
>
> >>What, as the reason for you making an assumption based on ignorance?
>
> >all assumptions are founded on ignorance or they wouldn't be
> > assumptions
>
> What utter rubbish.
>
> I don't know what education you received, but, based on the evidence of
> your illiteracy as exposed by your posts here, a reasonable assumption
> is that it was inadequate.
>
> --
> Malcolm
However you may describe the country and it's inhabitants quite a
number of it's natives used to have quite a problem getting back home
when they left the place. I would suggest electronically tagging all
Scotch people who leave their homeland.
At the end of Scottish week in Blackpool they would set of down the
motorway in what they assumed was the direction of home but when they
reached the M6 they would turn right and head in the direction of the
Midlands. You would come across them at various motorway services
wandering round completely unable to find their way back to their
homeland.
One sure way of directing them was to tell them to always drive back
the other way in the outside lane and eventually they would come to
Scotland.
They would always be extremely grateful for this advice.
Custos Custodum
news:fi7fh616qspo5jv68...@4ax.com:
Not a lot, other than being examples of words that formerly were
perfectly acceptable, but now are not. The definition you cite would
appear to be rather specialised jargon, as it does not appear in the
OED. Do you know anything of its etymology, or is it merely another
example of the sort of vulgarity we have come to expect from the lower
ranks? Somehow I can't imagine the ladies at the local yachting club
being comfortable with its use.
Alan Smaill
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:45:28 +0000, Jeff <je...@jsystems.com> wrote:
>
>>On 25/12/2010 11:43, alang wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:19:40 -0000, Halmyre<nos...@this.address>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article<c09ah61gql7mm7u9j...@4ax.com>, abelard3
>>>> @abelard.org says...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's cut to the fucking chase.
>>>>
>>>>> Scots?.In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in
>>>>> England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman?s
>>>>> supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such
>>>>> as ?Scotch mist?, ?Scotch whisky?) Scottish (less frequently Scots) is
>>>>> now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland
>>>>> the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage
>>>>> (1965)).]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Case closed, let's move on.
>>>
>>> You have no respect for tradition
>>
>> Even Rabbie Burns used the word Scotch when referring to things and
>>people other than whisky.
>>
>
> But do these whinging semi literate scotchmen recognise that?
Can't speak for others, but I do.
--
Alan Smaill
Farmer Giles
"Custos Custodum" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9E5BB2D2...@85.214.73.210...
That from a 'chap' who posted this only the other day:
"We're expecting a bumper crop of 'Eiswein'. That is, if the 'first
frost' ever comes to an end. Presumably the only grapes you ever see are
the ones hanging out of your boyfriend's arse."
Are there no lengths to which this disgusting piece of filth will not go to
in order to be seen to curry favour with his scotch 'friends'?
RH
> "Custos Custodum" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9E5BB2D2...@85.214.73.210...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:fi7fh616qspo5jv68...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 16:52:51 +0000 (UTC), Custos Custodum
> >> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>In article <ehtbh6lutgqrcs23kkmgn2p37pasqe4...@4ax.com>, alang
> >>>>>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:55:00 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >>>>>>>In article <if4lgs$e1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Jeff
> >>>>>>>>On 25/12/2010 11:43, alang wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:19:40 -0000, Halmyre
> > <nos...@this.address>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
Fantasy Celt friends shurely? (ed). RH
Custos Custodum
news:EfidnR44A4AJuITQ...@brightview.com:
>>>>>>Respecting tradition doesn't have to include freezing a language
>>>>>>in the form it was in 200 or more years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it doesn't involve an embargo on the use of such language
>>>>
>>>>You might want to check out the history of the word 'cunt'.
>>>
>>> What has a nautical splice to do with scotchmen?
>>
>> Not a lot, other than being examples of words that formerly were
>> perfectly acceptable, but now are not. The definition you cite would
>> appear to be rather specialised jargon, as it does not appear in the
>> OED. Do you know anything of its etymology, or is it merely another
>> example of the sort of vulgarity we have come to expect from the
>> lower ranks?
>
> That from a 'chap' who posted this only the other day:
>
> "We're expecting a bumper crop of 'Eiswein'. That is, if the 'first
> frost' ever comes to an end. Presumably the only grapes you ever see
> are the ones hanging out of your boyfriend's arse."
>
> Are there no lengths to which this disgusting piece of filth will not
> go to in order to be seen to curry favour with his scotch 'friends'?
Oh, look! It's Wodger, the wetired TV wepair man. "It's your picture
valve, Missus, that'll be £60." Was there a point you were trying to
make, or were you simply unable to contain your loathing of Scots any
longer? No matter, I don't have all day so we'll cut to the chase.
Here's a free clue (just to show we're not all as tight-fisted as some
would have you believe):
1. Buy or borrow a dictionary.
2. Look up the word 'bathos'.
(This next bit might cause some problems for a rude mechanical such as
yourself.)
3. Try to establish how I was able to incorporate this rhetorical device
into my post.
There now. That wasn't so difficult, was it?
Next lesson: "Metonymy or Synecdoche? - How to Tell Them Apart"
Custos Custodum
news:7d38848b-3f1a-4df1...@f2g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
>> Are there no lengths to which this disgusting piece of filth will not
>> go
> to
>> in order to be seen to curry favour with his scotch 'friends'?
>
>
> Fantasy Celt friends shurely? (ed). RH
And up pops the organ grinder to give his monkey a pat on the head.
Farmer Giles
> "Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:EfidnR44A4AJuITQ...@brightview.com:
>
>>>>>>>Respecting tradition doesn't have to include freezing a language
>>>>>>>in the form it was in 200 or more years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it doesn't involve an embargo on the use of such language
>>>>>
>>>>>You might want to check out the history of the word 'cunt'.
>>>>
>>>> What has a nautical splice to do with scotchmen?
>>>
>>> Not a lot, other than being examples of words that formerly were
>>> perfectly acceptable, but now are not. The definition you cite would
>>> appear to be rather specialised jargon, as it does not appear in the
>>> OED. Do you know anything of its etymology, or is it merely another
>>> example of the sort of vulgarity we have come to expect from the
>>> lower ranks?
>>
>> That from a 'chap' who posted this only the other day:
>>
>> "We're expecting a bumper crop of 'Eiswein'. That is, if the 'first
>> frost' ever comes to an end. Presumably the only grapes you ever see
>> are the ones hanging out of your boyfriend's arse."
>>
>> Are there no lengths to which this disgusting piece of filth will not
>> go to in order to be seen to curry favour with his scotch 'friends'?
>
> Oh, look! It's Wodger, the wetired TV wepair man.
Wrong - yet again, custard. Is it a hobby of yours, like your mate Soupie?
"It's your picture
> valve, Missus, that'll be �60." Was there a point you were trying to
> make, or were you simply unable to contain your loathing of Scots any
> longer? No matter, I don't have all day so we'll cut to the chase.
> Here's a free clue (just to show we're not all as tight-fisted as some
> would have you believe):
>
> 1. Buy or borrow a dictionary.
> 2. Look up the word 'bathos'.
> (This next bit might cause some problems for a rude mechanical such as
> yourself.)
> 3. Try to establish how I was able to incorporate this rhetorical device
> into my post.
>
> There now. That wasn't so difficult, was it?
>
> Next lesson: "Metonymy or Synecdoche? - How to Tell Them Apart"
Of course, custard, of course. I bet the 3 or 4 other thickos in
scot.politics are impressed.
Farmer Giles
---------------------------------------------
That one's not even a fantasy Celt, Robert. He does have delusions of
adequacy, though!
Custos Custodum
Really?
"Old TV techs like me will be looking to replace the smoothing caps!"
(Message-ID: <V4edncORAMPaJx_W...@brightview.com>)
"I remember in 1975 - when I worked in the television rental
industry..."
(Message-ID: <CcKdnQdj0KY3YCDW...@brightview.com>)
Or perhaps you're just splitting hairs about your retirement status in
an attempt to wriggle out of another "Gotcha!"
"Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive"
Farmer Giles
Oh dear, custard the perennial lurker and stalker has got it wrong again.
Yes I was a TV technician in the sixties and seventies, even having my own
successful television business until the early 80s - and very proud of both.
However, for the last 25 years I was involved with industrial control
systems and similar, and it was that from which I retired a little while
back.
Nice try, though. Although I'm afraid it hasn't stopped you being a
disgusting piece of filth. So back to the lurking, custard.
Custos Custodum
Oh no he hasn't! (He's behind you!)
> Yes I was a TV technician in the sixties and seventies, even having my
> own successful television business until the early 80s - and very
> proud of both. However, for the last 25 years I was involved with
> industrial control systems and similar, and it was that from which I
> retired a little while back.
Thank you for confirming that everything I wrote was correct and that
you were indeed splitting hairs about the details of your retirement.
>
> Nice try, though. Although I'm afraid it hasn't stopped you being a
> disgusting piece of filth. So back to the lurking, custard.
If it's all the same to you, I'll stick to being a thorn in your flesh.
More fun that way (for me).
Good Guys 1 - Nazis 0
Farmer Giles
Oh yes he has, must be a hobby of his.
>(He's behind you!)
Now that is worrying, with what I've seen of the contents of his sick and
disgusting mind.
>
>> Yes I was a TV technician in the sixties and seventies, even having my
>> own successful television business until the early 80s - and very
>> proud of both. However, for the last 25 years I was involved with
>> industrial control systems and similar, and it was that from which I
>> retired a little while back.
>
> Thank you for confirming that everything I wrote was correct and that
> you were indeed splitting hairs about the details of your retirement.
I had a paper round once too, I suppose to a stupid and small-minded idiot
like you that also makes me a retired paperboy. Not that whatever I'm
retired from has anything to do with you, or any worthwile conversation
here. Talk about scraping barrels!
>
>>
>> Nice try, though. Although I'm afraid it hasn't stopped you being a
>> disgusting piece of filth. So back to the lurking, custard.
>
> If it's all the same to you, I'll stick to being a thorn in your flesh.
> More fun that way (for me).
It'll take more than a rancid piece of filth like you to do that, sonny, but
please keep on trying if you wish. I'm sure the bosses are impressed.
> Good Guys 1 - Nazis 0
Quite right, filth, all you have to do now is remember which one you are.
Clue: I'm the one on the left.
Over to you now, scum. Don't forget all the big boys are watching, and
they'll be expecting something better than your last pathetic effort.
Custos Custodum
>>>
>>> Nice try, though. Although I'm afraid it hasn't stopped you being a
>>> disgusting piece of filth. So back to the lurking, custard.
>>
>> If it's all the same to you, I'll stick to being a thorn in your
>> flesh. More fun that way (for me).
>
> It'll take more than a rancid piece of filth like you to do that,
> sonny, but please keep on trying if you wish. I'm sure the bosses are
> impressed.
Ooh, I'm rancid now. It's definitely getting to you. Be careful not to
exhaust your vocabulary too quickly or you'll end up as boring and
repetitive as your pal, Henderson.
>
>
>> Good Guys 1 - Nazis 0
>
> Quite right, filth, all you have to do now is remember which one you
> are. Clue: I'm the one on the left.
Of course you are, Wodger. That's what the 'S' in 'NSDAP' means -
socialist.
>
> Over to you now, scum. Don't forget all the big boys are watching, and
> they'll be expecting something better than your last pathetic effort.
Why would they care? I'm sure they've already worked out who the racist
loon is.
Good Guys 2 - Nazis 0
Farmer Giles
Sorry, scum, that won't do it, over-used and meaningless that one. Try
again.
BTW, scum, you missed out 'anti-Semitic'. You know you've been told that you
must get that one in. ;-)
>
> Good Guys 2 - Nazis 0
Yep, that's right, two to me.
Not very good at this are you, rancid? Time you got those sockpuppets out
again!
Good Guys 3 - Nazis 0
Bloody hell! It's a hat-trick!
Easy! Easy!
GM
Forgive me for intruding in your exchange but it can't be a hat-trick.
The last one was an own goal.
Hope this helps.
GMc
Farmer Giles
"GM" <g-...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:839cbe42-8d01-4e14...@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Hope this helps.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't, bugger off. I know he's struggling, but let him fight his own
battles!
GM
> "GM" <g...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
Thank you for your considered comments and a I hope that 2011 is kind
to you also.
GMc
Farmer Giles
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you too. The same spirit and sentiment is firmly reciprocated.
Custos Custodum
How remiss of me! It must be really awful when your achievements don't
get the recognition they are due.
>>
>> Good Guys 2 - Nazis 0
>
> Yep, that's right, two to me.
>
> Not very good at this are you, rancid? Time you got those sockpuppets
> out again!
Which ones are those, Wodger? What would you recommend? Obviously I
can't use 'Sassy Knack' or 'Joe Soap' or you'd be accusing me of
identity theft.
>
> Good Guys 3 - Nazis 0
>
> Bloody hell! It's a hat-trick!
>
> Easy! Easy!
You certainly are. Anyway, it's Hogmanay and I'm a Scot, so I obviously
have better things to do than sit arguing the toss with a tosser. May
2011 bring you all that you deserve.
Farmer Giles
Don't worry about it, filth. Anything that comes from from you I regard as
no more than the worthless rantings of a deranged piece of idiotic scum.
>
>
>>>
>>> Good Guys 2 - Nazis 0
>>
>> Yep, that's right, two to me.
>>
>> Not very good at this are you, rancid? Time you got those sockpuppets
>> out again!
>
> Which ones are those, Wodger? What would you recommend? Obviously I
> can't use 'Sassy Knack' or 'Joe Soap' or you'd be accusing me of
> identity theft.
Use which ones you like, you've got plenty of them.
>
>
>>
>> Good Guys 3 - Nazis 0
>>
>> Bloody hell! It's a hat-trick!
>>
>>
>
> You certainly are. Anyway, it's Hogmanayand I'm a Scot,
So you say, and I'm sure some believe you.
so I obviously
> have better things to do than sit arguing the toss with a tosser.
That must be why you decided to come on here less than two hours from
midnight on New Year's Eve!
Good Guys 4 - Nazis 0
Easy! Easy! Easy! Easy!
Custos Custodum
>>> Not very good at this are you, rancid? Time you got those
>>> sockpuppets out again!
>>
>> Which ones are those, Wodger? What would you recommend? Obviously I
>> can't use 'Sassy Knack' or 'Joe Soap' or you'd be accusing me of
>> identity theft.
>
> Use which ones you like, you've got plenty of them.
I do? How strange, then, that so far you have been unable to put a name
to any of them. Unlike the two of yours I mentioned above.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Good Guys 3 - Nazis 0
>>>
>>> Bloody hell! It's a hat-trick!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You certainly are. Anyway, it's Hogmanayand I'm a Scot,
>
> So you say, and I'm sure some believe you.
What reason would anyone have to doubt it? Are you privy to information
that so far has eluded the rest of the world? A secret BNP dossier
perhaps? Or maybe Icke-like intuition?
>
> so I obviously
>> have better things to do than sit arguing the toss with a tosser.
>
> That must be why you decided to come on here less than two hours from
> midnight on New Year's Eve!
>
That's right. I was taking a short break from helping my wife with the
traditional Hogmanay task of cleaning and tidying the house from end to
end. You really shouldn't believe all the stereotypes about
overindulging in alcoholic beverages. Especially before 'the bells'.
> Good Guys 4 - Nazis 0
>
> Easy! Easy! Easy! Easy!
It certainly is when you keep scoring own goals like that.
Farmer Giles
> "Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:98udnfmevc27vYLQ...@brightview.com:
>
>
>>>> Not very good at this are you, rancid? Time you got those
>>>> sockpuppets out again!
>>>
>>> Which ones are those, Wodger? What would you recommend? Obviously I
>>> can't use 'Sassy Knack' or 'Joe Soap' or you'd be accusing me of
>>> identity theft.
>>
>> Use which ones you like, you've got plenty of them.
>
> I do? How strange, then, that so far you have been unable to put a name
> to any of them. Unlike the two of yours I mentioned above.
Oh, I can put a name to them alright, filth. I'm certainly not going to,
though - why spoil the fun of watching you think no-one knows what you're
about!
As for these sockpuppets you claim are mine, clearly you've been taking too
much notice of your mate Soupie's crystal-ball gazing.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good Guys 3 - Nazis 0
>>>>
>>>> Bloody hell! It's a hat-trick!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You certainly are. Anyway, it's Hogmanayand I'm a Scot,
>>
>> So you say, and I'm sure some believe you.
>
> What reason would anyone have to doubt it?
Lots, but you don't need me to tell you what you are, or what you are not.
You know what you are, and you know that I know what you are.
Are you privy to information
> that so far has eluded the rest of the world? A secret BNP dossier
> perhaps? Or maybe Icke-like intuition?
Oh, so it's a BNP connection I have now is it? And your proof for this is
what?
>
>>
>> so I obviously
>>> have better things to do than sit arguing the toss with a tosser.
>>
>> That must be why you decided to come on here less than two hours from
>> midnight on New Year's Eve!
>>
>
> That's right. I was taking a short break from helping my wife with the
> traditional Hogmanay task of cleaning and tidying the house from end to
> end. You really shouldn't believe all the stereotypes about
> overindulging in alcoholic beverages. Especially before 'the bells'.
I don't believe anything of the sort, neither do I believe any of your lies.
>
>> Good Guys 4 - Nazis 0
>>
>> Easy! Easy! Easy! Easy!
>
> It certainly is when you keep scoring own goals like that.
No own goals from me, scum. That would be impossible when all the play is in
your half!
Good Guys 5 - Nazis 0
Easy, Easy, Easy! Easy! Easy!
Looks like the foul-mouth scumbag will have to bring the subs on soon!
Custos Custodum
>
> "Custos Custodum" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9E60CC47D6D...@94.75.214.39...
>> "Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote in
>> news:98udnfmevc27vYLQ...@brightview.com:
>>
>>
>>>>> Not very good at this are you, rancid? Time you got those
>>>>> sockpuppets out again!
>>>>
>>>> Which ones are those, Wodger? What would you recommend? Obviously I
>>>> can't use 'Sassy Knack' or 'Joe Soap' or you'd be accusing me of
>>>> identity theft.
>>>
>>> Use which ones you like, you've got plenty of them.
>>
>> I do? How strange, then, that so far you have been unable to put a
>> name to any of them. Unlike the two of yours I mentioned above.
>
> Oh, I can put a name to them alright, filth. I'm certainly not going
> to, though - why spoil the fun of watching you think no-one knows what
> you're about!
Course you can, Wodger, course you can. <snigger!>
>
> As for these sockpuppets you claim are mine, clearly you've been
> taking too much notice of your mate Soupie's crystal-ball gazing.
Actually, he's right on the money - those posts had your fingerprints
all over the headers. Consider the facts: posters appear out of the blue
to defend Fatboi (sound familiar?). They all originate (as do yours)
from the same block of dynamically allocated IP addresses issued by an
ISP that you alone of all the people who post to these particular groups
use. Pretty compelling evidence, don't you think?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good Guys 3 - Nazis 0
>>>>>
>>>>> Bloody hell! It's a hat-trick!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You certainly are. Anyway, it's Hogmanayand I'm a Scot,
>>>
>>> So you say, and I'm sure some believe you.
>>
>> What reason would anyone have to doubt it?
>
> Lots, but you don't need me to tell you what you are, or what you are
> not. You know what you are, and you know that I know what you are.
Of course you do. It's just a pity that you have to lie about it in the
hope that some of the mud will stick.
>
> Are you privy to information
>> that so far has eluded the rest of the world? A secret BNP dossier
>> perhaps? Or maybe Icke-like intuition?
>
> Oh, so it's a BNP connection I have now is it? And your proof for this
> is what?
LOL. You don't need me to tell you what you are, or what you are
not. You know what you are, and you know that I know what you are.
You certainly sing from the same hymn sheet and you're usually one of
the first to jump to their defence when anyone says anything critical of
them. Not that that is likely to happen much in the future, now that
they're yesterday's men, not so much 'has-beens' as 'never really
weres'.
>
>>
>>>
>>> so I obviously
>>>> have better things to do than sit arguing the toss with a tosser.
>>>
>>> That must be why you decided to come on here less than two hours
>>> from midnight on New Year's Eve!
>>>
>>
>> That's right. I was taking a short break from helping my wife with
>> the traditional Hogmanay task of cleaning and tidying the house from
>> end to end. You really shouldn't believe all the stereotypes about
>> overindulging in alcoholic beverages. Especially before 'the bells'.
>
> I don't believe anything of the sort, neither do I believe any of your
> lies.
Unlike you, I don't need to lie. Anything I say that isn't obviously an
opinion is a verifiable fact.
Farmer Giles
> "Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:Eq6dnZTTNt5QDYLQ...@brightview.com:
>
>>
>> "Custos Custodum" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9E60CC47D6D...@94.75.214.39...
>>> "Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote in
>>> news:98udnfmevc27vYLQ...@brightview.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Not very good at this are you, rancid? Time you got those
>>>>>> sockpuppets out again!
>>>>>
>>>>> Which ones are those, Wodger? What would you recommend? Obviously I
>>>>> can't use 'Sassy Knack' or 'Joe Soap' or you'd be accusing me of
>>>>> identity theft.
>>>>
>>>> Use which ones you like, you've got plenty of them.
>>>
>>> I do? How strange, then, that so far you have been unable to put a
>>> name to any of them. Unlike the two of yours I mentioned above.
>>
>> Oh, I can put a name to them alright, filth. I'm certainly not going
>> to, though - why spoil the fun of watching you think no-one knows what
>> you're about!
>
> Course you can, Wodger, course you can. <snigger!>
Indeed I can, scum, (and it's amusing to see that you keep them under wraps
these days!). <snigger!>
>
>>
>> As for these sockpuppets you claim are mine, clearly you've been
>> taking too much notice of your mate Soupie's crystal-ball gazing.
>
> Actually, he's right on the money - those posts had your fingerprints
> all over the headers. Consider the facts: posters appear out of the blue
> to defend Fatboi (sound familiar?). They all originate (as do yours)
> from the same block of dynamically allocated IP addresses issued by an
> ISP that you alone of all the people who post to these particular groups
> use. Pretty compelling evidence, don't you think?
Oh dear, more pathetic flailing from the resident anti-English lurker.
The depraved piece of filth is clearly getting so desperate for a scrap of
argument that even after thinking about it for a week this is the best he
can do. What's the matter, filth, given up on your major plank of what I
retired from? <snigger!>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good Guys 3 - Nazis 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bloody hell! It's a hat-trick!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You certainly are. Anyway, it's Hogmanayand I'm a Scot,
>>>>
>>>> So you say, and I'm sure some believe you.
>>>
>>> What reason would anyone have to doubt it?
>>
>> Lots, but you don't need me to tell you what you are, or what you are
>> not. You know what you are, and you know that I know what you are.
>
> Of course you do. It's just a pity that you have to lie about it in the
> hope that some of the mud will stick.
There's only one liar here, filth, and you see him/it in the mirror every
morning.
>
>>
>> Are you privy to information
>>> that so far has eluded the rest of the world? A secret BNP dossier
>>> perhaps? Or maybe Icke-like intuition?
>>
>> Oh, so it's a BNP connection I have now is it? And your proof for this
>> is what?
>
> LOL. You don't need me to tell you what you are, or what you are
> not. You know what you are, and you know that I know what you are.
> You certainly sing from the same hymn sheet and you're usually one of
> the first to jump to their defence when anyone says anything critical of
> them. Not that that is likely to happen much in the future, now that
> they're yesterday's men, not so much 'has-beens' as 'never really
> weres'.
Oh dear, more desperation. Looks like it's back to the manual for you,
filth, you've almost exhausted the entire repetoire! More training for you,
I reckon. <snigger!>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> so I obviously
>>>>> have better things to do than sit arguing the toss with a tosser.
>>>>
>>>> That must be why you decided to come on here less than two hours
>>>> from midnight on New Year's Eve!
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's right. I was taking a short break from helping my wife with
>>> the traditional Hogmanay task of cleaning and tidying the house from
>>> end to end. You really shouldn't believe all the stereotypes about
>>> overindulging in alcoholic beverages. Especially before 'the bells'.
>>
>> I don't believe anything of the sort, neither do I believe any of your
>> lies.
>
> Unlike you, I don't need to lie. Anything I say that isn't obviously an
> opinion is a verifiable fact.
Verify them then.
Custos Custodum
>
> "Custos Custodum" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9E68120599...@94.75.214.39...
>> "Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote in
>> news:Eq6dnZTTNt5QDYLQ...@brightview.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Custos Custodum" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9E60CC47D6D...@94.75.214.39...
>>>> "Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote in
>>>> news:98udnfmevc27vYLQ...@brightview.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Not very good at this are you, rancid? Time you got those
>>>>>>> sockpuppets out again!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which ones are those, Wodger? What would you recommend? Obviously
>>>>>> I can't use 'Sassy Knack' or 'Joe Soap' or you'd be accusing me
>>>>>> of identity theft.
>>>>>
>>>>> Use which ones you like, you've got plenty of them.
>>>>
>>>> I do? How strange, then, that so far you have been unable to put a
>>>> name to any of them. Unlike the two of yours I mentioned above.
>>>
>>> Oh, I can put a name to them alright, filth. I'm certainly not going
>>> to, though - why spoil the fun of watching you think no-one knows
>>> what you're about!
>>
>> Course you can, Wodger, course you can. <snigger!>
>
> Indeed I can, scum, (and it's amusing to see that you keep them under
> wraps these days!). <snigger!>
Still afraid to stand up and be counted, I see. Seems to be the story of
your life, eh, Wodger?
>
>>
>>>
>>> As for these sockpuppets you claim are mine, clearly you've been
>>> taking too much notice of your mate Soupie's crystal-ball gazing.
>>
>> Actually, he's right on the money - those posts had your fingerprints
>> all over the headers. Consider the facts: posters appear out of the
>> blue to defend Fatboi (sound familiar?). They all originate (as do
>> yours) from the same block of dynamically allocated IP addresses
>> issued by an ISP that you alone of all the people who post to these
>> particular groups use. Pretty compelling evidence, don't you think?
>
> Oh dear, more pathetic flailing from the resident anti-English lurker.
You still haven;t produced any evidence that I'm anti-English and you
never will, because there isn't any.
>
> The depraved piece of filth is clearly getting so desperate for a
> scrap of argument that even after thinking about it for a week this is
> the best he can do.
And you're quite unable to refute any of it.
> What's the matter, filth, given up on your major
> plank of what I retired from? <snigger!>
What plank is that, Wodger? The beam in your own eye or the lump of 4x2
that's wedged between your ears? In any case, why flog a dead horse?
You've already confirmed everything I said, even to the point of weasel-
wording about the nature of your retirement as I predicted you would.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good Guys 3 - Nazis 0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bloody hell! It's a hat-trick!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You certainly are. Anyway, it's Hogmanayand I'm a Scot,
>>>>>
>>>>> So you say, and I'm sure some believe you.
>>>>
>>>> What reason would anyone have to doubt it?
>>>
>>> Lots, but you don't need me to tell you what you are, or what you
>>> are not. You know what you are, and you know that I know what you
>>> are.
>>
>> Of course you do. It's just a pity that you have to lie about it in
>> the hope that some of the mud will stick.
>
> There's only one liar here, filth, and you see him/it in the mirror
> every morning.
I bet you even had a straight face when you typed that. How do you
manage to lie so bare-facedly? Oh,I know - it's because you's a Nazi.
That's what they do, innit?
>
>>
>>>
>>> Are you privy to information
>>>> that so far has eluded the rest of the world? A secret BNP dossier
>>>> perhaps? Or maybe Icke-like intuition?
>>>
>>> Oh, so it's a BNP connection I have now is it? And your proof for
>>> this is what?
>>
>> LOL. You don't need me to tell you what you are, or what you are
>> not. You know what you are, and you know that I know what you are.
>> You certainly sing from the same hymn sheet and you're usually one
>> of the first to jump to their defence when anyone says anything
>> critical of them. Not that that is likely to happen much in the
>> future, now that they're yesterday's men, not so much 'has-beens' as
>> 'never really weres'.
>
> Oh dear, more desperation. Looks like it's back to the manual for you,
> filth, you've almost exhausted the entire repetoire! More training for
> you, I reckon. <snigger!>
Translation: another direct hit!
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> so I obviously
>>>>>> have better things to do than sit arguing the toss with a tosser.
>>>>>
>>>>> That must be why you decided to come on here less than two hours
>>>>> from midnight on New Year's Eve!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's right. I was taking a short break from helping my wife with
>>>> the traditional Hogmanay task of cleaning and tidying the house
>>>> from end to end. You really shouldn't believe all the stereotypes
>>>> about overindulging in alcoholic beverages. Especially before 'the
>>>> bells'.
>>>
>>> I don't believe anything of the sort, neither do I believe any of
>>> your lies.
>>
>> Unlike you, I don't need to lie. Anything I say that isn't obviously
>> an opinion is a verifiable fact.
>
> Verify them then.
I don't need to. You made the allegation. You prove it. That's how it
works.