Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > alt.atheism > #2116286 > unrolled thread

hey Brits!

Started byJeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>
First post2016-05-30 16:06 -0700
Last post2016-05-31 16:33 -0700
Articles 16 on this page of 36 — 9 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism


Contents

  hey Brits! Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-05-30 16:06 -0700
    Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-05-31 12:49 +1000
      Re: hey Brits! Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-05-30 20:28 -0700
    Re: hey Brits! Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 04:52 -0700
      Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-01 10:22 +1000
        Re: hey Brits! Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 02:45 -0700
          Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-01 20:40 +1000
            Re: hey Brits! Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 04:53 -0700
              Re: hey Brits! Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-01 17:48 +0000
                Re: hey Brits! Hypatiab69 <opuzayo@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 10:58 -0700
                  Re: hey Brits! Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-01 22:54 +0000
                    Re: hey Brits! Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 03:07 -0700
                      Re: hey Brits! Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-02 12:30 +0000
                        Re: hey Brits! Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 06:37 -0700
                          Re: hey Brits! Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-02 16:53 +0000
                            Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-03 10:42 +1000
                              Re: hey Brits! Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:09 -0700
                                Re: hey Brits! Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 00:02 -0400
                                  Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-04 16:06 +1000
                                    Re: hey Brits! Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 02:17 -0400
                                  Re: hey Brits! Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-04 04:19 -0700
                                    Re: hey Brits! Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-06-04 11:02 -0400
                                      Re: hey Brits! Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-04 15:06 -0700
                                    Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-05 11:29 +1000
                                      Re: hey Brits! Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-04 20:55 -0700
                                        Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-05 18:38 +1000
                          Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-03 10:45 +1000
                            Re: hey Brits! Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 04:02 -0700
                              Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-04 11:00 +1000
                                Re: hey Brits! Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 04:43 -0700
                                  Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-05 11:33 +1000
              Re: hey Brits! "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-06-02 11:08 +1000
                Re: hey Brits! Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-02 12:33 +0000
    Re: hey Brits! Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-05-31 05:37 -0700
      Re: hey Brits! John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-05-31 16:10 +0100
        Re: hey Brits! Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-05-31 16:33 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]


#2119311

FromJeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>
Date2016-06-04 04:19 -0700
Message-ID<hlwdjsd2-907FE9.04192204062016@news.giganews.com>
In reply to#2119217
In article <nitjth$5lh$1@dont-email.me>, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> Le 2016-06-03 à 08:09, Jeanne Douglas a écrit :
> > In article <drc241FgbrhU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >  "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/06/2016 02:53, Smiler wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 06:37:10 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered robot
> >>>>>>>>>> drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their sash and fly
> >>>>>>>>>> them across to dear old Alba.  It's not ideal territory for
> >>>>>>>>>> solar power but it is an option.  Imagine an Orange Lodge March
> >>>>>>>>>> being evicted in formation.
> >>>>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came from.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Fuck off, forger.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.) The
> >>>>>> "Ulster Scots" are the product of deliberate "Plantation".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
> >>>>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me - without much
> >>>> investigation - that the world would be a better place if that
> >>>> "Plantation" had not happened.
> >>>
> >>> I agree.
> >>
> >> Wholesale migration, whether involuntary or not, are part of human
> >> behaviour and history.  Sometimes the effects have been beneficial,
> >> sometimes not so much.  I suspect that in the case of Ireland, much
> >> tragedy could have been avoided....
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> But apparently the "Scoti" tribe had previously come from Ireland
> >>>> anyway.  I don't know why, maybe they played bagpipes too loud and were
> >>>> emphatically asked to leave.
> >>>
> >>> The Irish also play bagpipes, but they are slightly more tuneful.
> >>
> >> "Slightly more tuneful"?
> >>
> >> That's like saying Hitler was slightly more humane than Stalin.
> >>
> >> Either sounds like a cat being drowned in a blender with misaligned
> >> bearings....
> >
> >
> > I love bagpipes. Must be my Scottish genes.
> >
> 
> What about haggis, then?
> 
> ;-)

Never had it and never will. I do not eat organ mean, on principle.

-- 

JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream 
up a God superior to themselves. Most 
Gods have the manners and morals of a 
spoiled child.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2119398

FromDon Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net>
Date2016-06-04 11:02 -0400
Message-ID<olq5lb9kqb97bm95h8e3fbna5d4ldifver@4ax.com>
In reply to#2119311
On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 04:19:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>> What about haggis, then?
>> 
>> ;-)
>
>Never had it and never will. I do not eat organ meat, on principle.

What sort of principle might that be, if you are willing to eat the
rest of the animal?

On my principles, I get to enjoy liver and onions, steak and kidney
pie, and, I expect, devilled kidneys, if I ever get to try one.

-- 
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
         Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean) 
          Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2119719

FromJeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>
Date2016-06-04 15:06 -0700
Message-ID<hlwdjsd2-6C24B6.15065204062016@news.giganews.com>
In reply to#2119398
In article <olq5lb9kqb97bm95h8e3fbna5d4ldifver@4ax.com>,
 Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 04:19:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >> What about haggis, then?
> >> 
> >> ;-)
> >
> >Never had it and never will. I do not eat organ meat, on principle.
> 
> What sort of principle might that be, if you are willing to eat the
> rest of the animal?

That they're disgusting guts. Completely and totally gross.


> On my principles, I get to enjoy liver and onions, steak and kidney
> pie, and, I expect, devilled kidneys, if I ever get to try one.

-- 

JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream 
up a God superior to themselves. Most 
Gods have the manners and morals of a 
spoiled child.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2119840

From"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
Date2016-06-05 11:29 +1000
Message-ID<drhdkaFib6eU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#2119311
On 04/06/2016 21:19, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <nitjth$5lh$1@dont-email.me>, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Le 2016-06-03 à 08:09, Jeanne Douglas a écrit :
>>> In article <drc241FgbrhU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>  "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


>>>
>>> I love bagpipes. Must be my Scottish genes.
>>>
>>
>> What about haggis, then?
>>
>> ;-)
>
> Never had it and never will. I do not eat organ mean, on principle.
>

You mean you never had foie gras?

<boggle>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2119904

FromJeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>
Date2016-06-04 20:55 -0700
Message-ID<hlwdjsd2-EC431B.20554104062016@news.giganews.com>
In reply to#2119840
In article <drhdkaFib6eU1@mid.individual.net>,
 "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 04/06/2016 21:19, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > In article <nitjth$5lh$1@dont-email.me>, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Le 2016-06-03 à 08:09, Jeanne Douglas a écrit :
> >>> In article <drc241FgbrhU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>  "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>> I love bagpipes. Must be my Scottish genes.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What about haggis, then?
> >>
> >> ;-)
> >
> > Never had it and never will. I do not eat organ mean, on principle.
> >
> 
> You mean you never had foie gras?
> 
> <boggle>

<gack>

-- 

JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream 
up a God superior to themselves. Most 
Gods have the manners and morals of a 
spoiled child.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2119988

From"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
Date2016-06-05 18:38 +1000
Message-ID<dri6nuFmm1aU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#2119904
On 05/06/2016 13:55, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <drhdkaFib6eU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 04/06/2016 21:19, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> In article <nitjth$5lh$1@dont-email.me>, Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 2016-06-03 à 08:09, Jeanne Douglas a écrit :
>>>>> In article <drc241FgbrhU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>  "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I love bagpipes. Must be my Scottish genes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What about haggis, then?
>>>>
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> Never had it and never will. I do not eat organ mean, on principle.
>>>
>>
>> You mean you never had foie gras?
>>
>> <boggle>
>
> <gack>
>

You really are missing out on some utterly fantastic (and nutritious) 
dining experiences, Jeanne!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2118469

From"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
Date2016-06-03 10:45 +1000
Message-ID<drc289FgbrhU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#2118044
On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered robot
>>>>>>> drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their sash and fly
>>>>>>> them across to dear old Alba.  It's not ideal territory for solar
>>>>>>> power but it is an option.  Imagine an Orange Lodge March being
>>>>>>> evicted in formation.
>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came from.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
>>>>
>>>> Fuck off, forger.
>>>
>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.) The "Ulster
>>> Scots" are the product of deliberate "Plantation".
>>
>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
>
> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me -
> without much investigation - that the world would be a
> better place if that "Plantation" had not happened.

That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After three 
centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else.  To uproot them 
now would be to commit a new crime...


>
> But apparently the "Scoti" tribe had previously come
> from Ireland anyway.  I don't know why, maybe they
> played bagpipes too loud and were emphatically asked
> to leave.

The Pictsies must have been so happy to hear them approaching...


[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2118699

FromRobert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-03 04:02 -0700
Message-ID<e1da5282-55df-4ec3-bd63-6834298b6017@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#2118469
On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:45:00 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> >> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
> >>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered robot
> >>>>>>> drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their sash and fly
> >>>>>>> them across to dear old Alba.  It's not ideal territory for solar
> >>>>>>> power but it is an option.  Imagine an Orange Lodge March being
> >>>>>>> evicted in formation.
> >>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came from.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
> >>>>
> >>>> Fuck off, forger.
> >>>
> >>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.) The "Ulster
> >>> Scots" are the product of deliberate "Plantation".
> >>
> >> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
> >> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
> >
> > I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me -
> > without much investigation - that the world would be a
> > better place if that "Plantation" had not happened.
> 
> That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After three 
> centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else.  To uproot them 
> now would be to commit a new crime...

And neither Donald Trump nor any other hypothetical 
international figure would ever consider such a thing?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2119122

From"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
Date2016-06-04 11:00 +1000
Message-ID<drenh6F236pU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#2118699
On 03/06/2016 21:02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:45:00 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
>>>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered robot
>>>>>>>>> drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their sash and fly
>>>>>>>>> them across to dear old Alba.  It's not ideal territory for solar
>>>>>>>>> power but it is an option.  Imagine an Orange Lodge March being
>>>>>>>>> evicted in formation.
>>>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fuck off, forger.
>>>>>
>>>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.) The "Ulster
>>>>> Scots" are the product of deliberate "Plantation".
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
>>>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
>>>
>>> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me -
>>> without much investigation - that the world would be a
>>> better place if that "Plantation" had not happened.
>>
>> That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After three
>> centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else.  To uproot them
>> now would be to commit a new crime...
>
> And neither Donald Trump nor any other hypothetical
> international figure would ever consider such a thing?
>

Of course they have.

But never in a first-world nation with nukes....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2119321

FromRobert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-04 04:43 -0700
Message-ID<f6a9d6ec-8d1d-4d0f-a767-505571f3652a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#2119122
On Saturday, 4 June 2016 02:00:27 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> On 03/06/2016 21:02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:45:00 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >> On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
> >>>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered robot
> >>>>>>>>> drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their sash and fly
> >>>>>>>>> them across to dear old Alba.  It's not ideal territory for solar
> >>>>>>>>> power but it is an option.  Imagine an Orange Lodge March being
> >>>>>>>>> evicted in formation.
> >>>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came from.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fuck off, forger.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.) The "Ulster
> >>>>> Scots" are the product of deliberate "Plantation".
> >>>>
> >>>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
> >>>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
> >>>
> >>> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me -
> >>> without much investigation - that the world would be a
> >>> better place if that "Plantation" had not happened.
> >>
> >> That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After three
> >> centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else.  To uproot them
> >> now would be to commit a new crime...
> >
> > And neither Donald Trump nor any other hypothetical
> > international figure would ever consider such a thing?
> >
> 
> Of course they have.
> 
> But never in a first-world nation with nukes....

Britain has made-in-America nuclear weapons.
I don't think they can be pointed towards the
western hemisphere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2119843

From"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
Date2016-06-05 11:33 +1000
Message-ID<drhdqcFic8oU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#2119321
On 04/06/2016 21:43, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 June 2016 02:00:27 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> On 03/06/2016 21:02, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Friday, 3 June 2016 01:45:00 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>>> On 02/06/2016 23:37, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 13:30:13 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 03:07:18 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 23:54:43 UTC+1, Smiler  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:58:05 -0700, Hypatiab69 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 1:49:05 PM UTC-4, Smiler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 04:53:24 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How would that be accomplished?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered robot
>>>>>>>>>>> drones that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their sash and fly
>>>>>>>>>>> them across to dear old Alba.  It's not ideal territory for solar
>>>>>>>>>>> power but it is an option.  Imagine an Orange Lodge March being
>>>>>>>>>>> evicted in formation.
>>>>>>>>>>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Send them back to Scotland, as that's where they came from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are NOT a Brit, are you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fuck off, forger.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She's sort of right.  (Ultimately everyone is from Africa.) The "Ulster
>>>>>>> Scots" are the product of deliberate "Plantation".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, but I was showing the folly of your idea.
>>>>>> Be careful what you wish for. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not exactly wishing for it, but it seems to me -
>>>>> without much investigation - that the world would be a
>>>>> better place if that "Plantation" had not happened.
>>>>
>>>> That is probably right, but it doesn't help us now.  After three
>>>> centuries, they are as local and native as anyone else.  To uproot them
>>>> now would be to commit a new crime...
>>>
>>> And neither Donald Trump nor any other hypothetical
>>> international figure would ever consider such a thing?
>>>
>>
>> Of course they have.
>>
>> But never in a first-world nation with nukes....
>
> Britain has made-in-America nuclear weapons.
> I don't think they can be pointed towards the
> western hemisphere.
>

The missiles are American-made, but the warheads are entirely British.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2117758

From"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
Date2016-06-02 11:08 +1000
Message-ID<dr9f8vFd2aU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#2117306
On 01/06/2016 21:53, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 01:22:47 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:


>>>>> I do foresee an independent Britain quickly losing
>>>>> Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, and, if President Trump
>>>>> sends troops in, what's they've currently got of Ireland
>>>>> (Dublin isn't going to say no).  That's probably bad news
>>>>> for the SNP since the Protestant refugees probably would
>>>>> become Scottish, and Ulster does say no - notoriously so.
>>>>
>>>> I rather doubt that Dublin is not going to say "no".  They currently
>>>> have enough problems of their own without trying to integrate the Six
>>>> Counties.  Not to mention that they are definitely unkeen to call down
>>>> on their own heads another terrorist war -- a certainty, because the NI
>>>> Protestants are not going to take any such transfer of sovereignty lying
>>>> down.
>>>
>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
>>
>> How would that be accomplished?
>
> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar
> powered robot drones that fly down to pick up
> Ulstermen by their sash and fly them across to
> dear old Alba.  It's not ideal territory for
> solar power but it is an option.  Imagine an
> Orange Lodge March being evicted in formation.
> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
>

Maybe he will simply turn all of the Six Counties into a giant Trump 
golf course....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2118025

FromSmiler <smiler@jo.king>
Date2016-06-02 12:33 +0000
Message-ID<nip921$dct$4@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#2117758
On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 11:08:46 +1000, Alex W. wrote:

> On 01/06/2016 21:53, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 11:40:14 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2016 19:45, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 1 June 2016 01:22:47 UTC+1, Alex W.  wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>>> I do foresee an independent Britain quickly losing Gibraltar, the
>>>>>> Falkland Islands, and, if President Trump sends troops in, what's
>>>>>> they've currently got of Ireland (Dublin isn't going to say no). 
>>>>>> That's probably bad news for the SNP since the Protestant refugees
>>>>>> probably would become Scottish, and Ulster does say no -
>>>>>> notoriously so.
>>>>>
>>>>> I rather doubt that Dublin is not going to say "no".  They currently
>>>>> have enough problems of their own without trying to integrate the
>>>>> Six Counties.  Not to mention that they are definitely unkeen to
>>>>> call down on their own heads another terrorist war -- a certainty,
>>>>> because the NI Protestants are not going to take any such transfer
>>>>> of sovereignty lying down.
>>>>
>>>> I'm presuming a thorough "ethnic cleansing".
>>>> No more Northern Ireland Protestants.
>>>
>>> How would that be accomplished?
>>
>> That would be Trump's problem.  But maybe solar powered robot drones
>> that fly down to pick up Ulstermen by their sash and fly them across to
>> dear old Alba.  It's not ideal territory for solar power but it is an
>> option.  Imagine an Orange Lodge March being evicted in formation.
>> Like "Apocalypse Now" with flutes.
>>
>>
> Maybe he will simply turn all of the Six Counties into a giant Trump
> golf course....

Haven't they filled in the holes (craters) from the 'troubles' yet?

-- 
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made 
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2116651

FromMalcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com>
Date2016-05-31 05:37 -0700
Message-ID<5807e722-253b-4fa6-99f9-728da923fe47@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#2116286
Don't think Boris will get in if the vote is for exit. Since Thatcher there's a certain etiquette about a change of leaders in the Tory party. Whoever obviously sticks the knife in doesn't get the vote within the party. This is why the custom of a "stalking horse" candidate has arisen. Some no-hoper MP stands against the current leader to create the contest, but whoever does this has no chance of further advancement. Their only function is that of scapegoat.

Otherwise, yes, if the vote is for exit there will be calls for a new Scottish referendum especially if, as seems likely, the Scottish vote is to stay in. However I think it unlikely these calls will be heeded. After all the EU referendum was already promised when the Scottish Independence referendum was called.


On Monday, 30 May 2016 23:06:27 UTC, Jeanne Douglas  wrote:
> What do you think of this article; does it have any relation to reality 
> or is it fantasy?
> 
> 
> "Brexit could break up Britain: Why the EU vote could mean the end of 
> Britain as we know it"
> 
> 
> <http://www.salon.com/2016/05/29/brexit_could_break_up_britain_why_the_eu
> _vote_could_mean_the_end_of_britain_as_we_know_it/?source=newsletter>
> 
> or
> 
> <http://bit.ly/1TStQ56>
> 
> 
> "The first thing the Scottish Nationalists will do is demand another 
> independence vote. In fact they are already doing just that. The 
> Scottish Nationalists narrowly lost an independence referendum in 
> September 2014, and leader Nicola Sturgeon has made no secret of her 
> desire for another referendum should Britain choose to leave the EU. She 
> has already argued, rightly, that the last independence referendum in 
> Scotland was based on a background of Britain remaining a part of the 
> EU. With the backdrop changed so dramatically, based largely on English 
> votes, the calls for another independence vote will be deafening."
> 
> 
> 
> "No matter what campaign dilemmas Ms. Sturgeon faces, they will pale in 
> comparison to those Prime Minister Boris Johnson will face, assuming, as 
> most do, that the Brexit campaign¹s figurehead becomes Prime Minister in 
> the event of a Brexit win. He can¹t then beg the Scots to stay having 
> led a Brexit campaign based national sovereignty and self-determination 
> arguments, particularly as his popularity north of the border makes 
> current PM David Cameron look like William Wallace. Imagine that ­ the 
> Queen¹s Prime Minister unable to campaign to keep the country intact."
> 
> 
> 
> The article goes on to discuss Ulster, Wales, and the entire 
> Commonwealth.
> 
> -- 
> 
> JD
> 
> Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream 
> up a God superior to themselves. Most 
> Gods have the manners and morals of a 
> spoiled child.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2116719

FromJohn Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk>
Date2016-05-31 16:10 +0100
Message-ID<lr9G$BRDmaTXFwZL@hotmail.co.uk>
In reply to#2116651
In article <5807e722-253b-4fa6-99f9-728da923fe47@googlegroups.com>,
Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> writes
>Don't think Boris will get in if the vote is for exit. Since Thatcher there's a 
>certain etiquette about a change of leaders in the Tory party. Whoever obviously 
>sticks the knife in doesn't get the vote within the party. This is why the 
>custom of a "stalking horse" candidate has arisen. Some no-hoper MP stands 
>against the current leader to create the contest, but whoever does this has no 
>chance of further advancement. Their only function is that of scapegoat.

It's not a question of etiquette, but of the current electoral rules in
the Conservative Party. If the current leader loses a vote of confidence
held by their own MPs, there is an election for which the ousted leader
is ineligible. The MPs hold a series of votes. At each stage the bottom
candidates drop out (along with anyone else who realises they don't have
a chance, perhaps they simply wanted 'former candidate for leader' to
appear on their CV) until only two candidates remain. Since (very
roughly) the Conservative MPs are split 10% pro- EU, 40% strongly anti-
EU and 50% anti-EU in rhetoric, but prepared to vote to remain if the
leadership insists, one would presumably be George Osborne, the Cameron
continuity candidate who would get most of the 10% and the 50% and
perhaps some of the 40%. 
To get the second place sewn up a candidate would need to appeal to the
strongly anti-EU 40%, which seems to point to Boris.
The final stage is a postal ballot of all Conservative Party members,
who are generally anti-EU. George Osborne has the personality of a dead
slug, while Boris is a Trump-style populist.

-- 
John Ritson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#2117042

FromJeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com>
Date2016-05-31 16:33 -0700
Message-ID<hlwdjsd2-E7CC81.16331131052016@news.giganews.com>
In reply to#2116719
In article <lr9G$BRDmaTXFwZL@hotmail.co.uk>,
 John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <5807e722-253b-4fa6-99f9-728da923fe47@googlegroups.com>,
> Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> writes
> >Don't think Boris will get in if the vote is for exit. Since Thatcher 
> >there's a 
> >certain etiquette about a change of leaders in the Tory party. Whoever 
> >obviously 
> >sticks the knife in doesn't get the vote within the party. This is why the 
> >custom of a "stalking horse" candidate has arisen. Some no-hoper MP stands 
> >against the current leader to create the contest, but whoever does this has 
> >no 
> >chance of further advancement. Their only function is that of scapegoat.
> 
> It's not a question of etiquette, but of the current electoral rules in
> the Conservative Party. If the current leader loses a vote of confidence
> held by their own MPs, there is an election for which the ousted leader
> is ineligible. The MPs hold a series of votes. At each stage the bottom
> candidates drop out (along with anyone else who realises they don't have
> a chance, perhaps they simply wanted 'former candidate for leader' to
> appear on their CV) until only two candidates remain. Since (very
> roughly) the Conservative MPs are split 10% pro- EU, 40% strongly anti-
> EU and 50% anti-EU in rhetoric, but prepared to vote to remain if the
> leadership insists, one would presumably be George Osborne, the Cameron
> continuity candidate who would get most of the 10% and the 50% and
> perhaps some of the 40%. 
> To get the second place sewn up a candidate would need to appeal to the
> strongly anti-EU 40%, which seems to point to Boris.
> The final stage is a postal ballot of all Conservative Party members,
> who are generally anti-EU. George Osborne has the personality of a dead
> slug, while Boris is a Trump-style populist.


Thanks for the lesson in parliamentary politics.

-- 

JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream 
up a God superior to themselves. Most 
Gods have the manners and morals of a 
spoiled child.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism


csiph-web