Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2170146 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-18 04:26 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-09-21 21:47 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 04:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 16:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 11:29 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 09:59 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 03:25 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-18 20:56 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 00:37 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 16:11 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:28 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 11:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 12:12 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 03:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 19:14 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 10:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 09:28 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-22 00:12 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 03:50 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 18:17 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 02:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 10:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 12:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-23 14:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 10:35 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 05:55 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 05:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 19:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 17:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 06:44 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-25 22:40 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-26 17:56 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 23:09 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-27 19:02 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 20:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 10:18 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 03:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 11:41 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 20:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 04:48 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-29 10:07 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-29 08:04 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:43 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-27 19:06 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-27 05:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-27 20:28 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 01:17 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 23:55 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 15:04 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-29 00:03 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 00:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 00:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-29 15:48 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 23:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 11:50 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-27 22:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 14:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:07 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-27 10:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 18:10 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 16:08 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 08:53 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 17:27 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 10:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-20 09:40 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 03:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 12:05 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 04:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-19 20:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 23:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 00:15 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 11:51 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:14 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 23:38 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 22:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 01:20 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-21 05:43 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-21 14:27 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-21 10:09 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-21 11:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 04:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 21:42 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 16:22 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 10:11 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 08:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-21 23:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 17:50 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 17:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 22:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 12:38 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 02:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 22:11 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-22 22:25 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 04:36 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 16:18 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 02:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 18:20 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 09:30 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 18:17 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-23 02:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 10:47 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-23 18:43 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-24 04:29 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 17:29 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-23 23:20 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-23 16:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-23 15:05 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:22 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-24 16:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 05:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 15:50 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 21:42 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-26 01:05 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-22 18:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-21 17:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 17:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-22 01:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 04:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 17:41 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 10:18 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 11:26 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 04:51 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 22:53 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 16:35 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:22 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 17:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:33 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 19:39 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 22:52 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 09:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-23 12:52 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 21:49 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 09:30 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-20 20:12 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 21:47 +0100
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 02:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ns2il8$ug3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2172310 |
Le 2016-09-23 à 02:18, Alex W. a écrit : > On 23/09/2016 12:36, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 22.09.2016 23:25, schrieb Les Hellawell: >> >>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >>> >>> >>>>>> They have >>>>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of >>>>>> economy. >>> >>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as >>> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >>> medieval period. .. >>> >>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the >>> town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago >>> though some remnants remain >> >> The US system is often called 'Corporatism'. >> >> These corporations are the large companies, which practically own the >> country. >> >> They act under the control of some unknown entity, since they usually >> behave coordinated. > > The entity is not unknown. > > We call it "the marketplace". > > The same pressures and attractions of the business environment will lead > to similar behaviour. If one firm reduces prices, its competitors will > follow suit, and for the same reasons. What reasons? Usually it's always by reducing labour costs. Even with slavery you have to account with labour cost. How low can one get? > If one company launches a new > product or service, others will have to do the same. Not unless the new product or service is patented or trademarked or copyrighted. > No conspiracy there... > > >> >> They seem to practise an authoritarian kind of (right winged) socialism. >> The behaviour is quite anti-capitalistic, but a strange form of >> collectivism. These collectives are organised in vertical steps, which >> build a vast superstructure of interlocked organisations. >> >> At the top of this ice-berg we find the Queen of England. > > Who has no actual political power and who exercises economic power only > as the head and administrator of the admittedly significant financial > holdings of the British Crown. > > >> >> A few levels lower we find the guilds of the city of London and remains >> of colonial guilds, like the Virginia Company or the East India Company. > > None of which have any legal, political or economic power or rights. > > >> >> How this system work in detail, that is not known, at least not for me. >> >> But the City of London does still exist today. > > Of course it does. > > It is a *city*. > > You might as well find it suspicious that the cities of Hamburg or > Berlin or Frankfurt exist. > > > -- Olrik aa #1981 EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 18:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4k6ulFi606U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2172315 |
On 23/09/2016 16:38, Olrik wrote: > Le 2016-09-23 à 02:18, Alex W. a écrit : >> On 23/09/2016 12:36, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 22.09.2016 23:25, schrieb Les Hellawell: >>> >>>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> They have >>>>>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of >>>>>>> economy. >>>> >>>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as >>>> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >>>> medieval period. .. >>>> >>>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >>>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the >>>> town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago >>>> though some remnants remain >>> >>> The US system is often called 'Corporatism'. >>> >>> These corporations are the large companies, which practically own the >>> country. >>> >>> They act under the control of some unknown entity, since they usually >>> behave coordinated. >> >> The entity is not unknown. >> >> We call it "the marketplace". >> >> The same pressures and attractions of the business environment will lead >> to similar behaviour. If one firm reduces prices, its competitors will >> follow suit, and for the same reasons. > > What reasons? Usually it's always by reducing labour costs. Even with > slavery you have to account with labour cost. How low can one get? Labour costs, infrastructure, the tax and regulatory environment, proximity to the customers, transport costs, availability of resources, defending or increasing market share, global stockmarket gyrations, structural changes within any given industry.... > >> If one company launches a new >> product or service, others will have to do the same. > > Not unless the new product or service is patented or trademarked or > copyrighted. Even then. There are ways around these problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 09:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4k413FhfgeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2172310 |
Am 23.09.2016 08:18, schrieb Alex W.: > On 23/09/2016 12:36, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 22.09.2016 23:25, schrieb Les Hellawell: >> >>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >>> >>> >>>>>> They have >>>>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of >>>>>> economy. >>> >>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as >>> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >>> medieval period. .. >>> >>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the >>> town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago >>> though some remnants remain >> >> The US system is often called 'Corporatism'. >> >> These corporations are the large companies, which practically own the >> country. >> >> They act under the control of some unknown entity, since they usually >> behave coordinated. > > The entity is not unknown. > > We call it "the marketplace". Competitive market economy is the least thing, which these corporations have in mind. As far as an outsider can say, these corporations want monopolies and aim to destroy competitors. They also do not refrain from creating cartels and conspire with enemies. > The same pressures and attractions of the business environment will lead > to similar behaviour. If one firm reduces prices, its competitors will > follow suit, and for the same reasons. If one company launches a new > product or service, others will have to do the same. > > No conspiracy there... The government could prevent lawless economical habits, if the government itself would not be a part of the same system. The common people can do whatever they like, this wouldn't change anything. > >> >> They seem to practise an authoritarian kind of (right winged) socialism. >> The behaviour is quite anti-capitalistic, but a strange form of >> collectivism. These collectives are organised in vertical steps, which >> build a vast superstructure of interlocked organisations. >> >> At the top of this ice-berg we find the Queen of England. > > Who has no actual political power and who exercises economic power only > as the head and administrator of the admittedly significant financial > holdings of the British Crown. Yes, the real power is not applied by her personally. For this she has her people. > >> >> A few levels lower we find the guilds of the city of London and remains >> of colonial guilds, like the Virginia Company or the East India Company. > > None of which have any legal, political or economic power or rights. Well, I have found a guild that is called 'Honorable Society of worshipful Scientific instrument makers'. These 'instruments' seem to be all kinds of things and 'science' to them sounds more like warfare to me. > >> >> How this system work in detail, that is not known, at least not for me. >> >> But the City of London does still exist today. > > Of course it does. > > It is a *city*. > > You might as well find it suspicious that the cities of Hamburg or > Berlin or Frankfurt exist. > No, London is a city, but the 'City of London' is not. It is roughly a square-mile, which pretends to be ex-territorial to England, the UK and the EU. The English would better off, if they fence this in, cut water and power-supply and let nobody in or out. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 18:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4k6p1Fi48qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2172320 |
On 23/09/2016 17:30, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 23.09.2016 08:18, schrieb Alex W.: >> On 23/09/2016 12:36, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 22.09.2016 23:25, schrieb Les Hellawell: >>> >>>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> They have >>>>>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of >>>>>>> economy. >>>> >>>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as >>>> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >>>> medieval period. .. >>>> >>>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >>>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the >>>> town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago >>>> though some remnants remain >>> >>> The US system is often called 'Corporatism'. >>> >>> These corporations are the large companies, which practically own the >>> country. >>> >>> They act under the control of some unknown entity, since they usually >>> behave coordinated. >> >> The entity is not unknown. >> >> We call it "the marketplace". > > Competitive market economy is the least thing, which these corporations > have in mind. > > As far as an outsider can say, these corporations want monopolies and > aim to destroy competitors. > > They also do not refrain from creating cartels and conspire with enemies. Which is why the marketplace is regulated. Cartels, where found, are punished really quite severely. > >> The same pressures and attractions of the business environment will lead >> to similar behaviour. If one firm reduces prices, its competitors will >> follow suit, and for the same reasons. If one company launches a new >> product or service, others will have to do the same. >> >> No conspiracy there... > > The government could prevent lawless economical habits, if the > government itself would not be a part of the same system. > > The common people can do whatever they like, this wouldn't change anything. Except that firms flourish or die at the mercy of the consumers, aka "the common people". > >> >>> >>> They seem to practise an authoritarian kind of (right winged) socialism. >>> The behaviour is quite anti-capitalistic, but a strange form of >>> collectivism. These collectives are organised in vertical steps, which >>> build a vast superstructure of interlocked organisations. >>> >>> At the top of this ice-berg we find the Queen of England. >> >> Who has no actual political power and who exercises economic power only >> as the head and administrator of the admittedly significant financial >> holdings of the British Crown. > > > Yes, the real power is not applied by her personally. For this she has > her people. ... who become "her people" as decided by the electorate. She has no say in this. >> >>> >>> A few levels lower we find the guilds of the city of London and remains >>> of colonial guilds, like the Virginia Company or the East India Company. >> >> None of which have any legal, political or economic power or rights. > > Well, I have found a guild that is called 'Honorable Society of > worshipful Scientific instrument makers'. > > These 'instruments' seem to be all kinds of things and 'science' to them > sounds more like warfare to me. So? Does this guild/society have any actual power? Do they dictate defence procurement? Do they formulate government policy? > >> >>> >>> How this system work in detail, that is not known, at least not for me. >>> >>> But the City of London does still exist today. >> >> Of course it does. >> >> It is a *city*. >> >> You might as well find it suspicious that the cities of Hamburg or >> Berlin or Frankfurt exist. >> > > No, London is a city, but the 'City of London' is not. > > It is roughly a square-mile, which pretends to be ex-territorial to > England, the UK and the EU. > > The English would better off, if they fence this in, cut water and > power-supply and let nobody in or out. The City of London is a separate and distinct legal entity from Greater London. It existed for centuries when "London" did not have a mayor or a city hall or any sort of administration beyond the level of individual boroughs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 02:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-970A7E.02315923092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2172331 |
In article <e4k6p1Fi48qU1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 23/09/2016 17:30, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 23.09.2016 08:18, schrieb Alex W.: > >> On 23/09/2016 12:36, Thomas Heger wrote: > >>> Am 22.09.2016 23:25, schrieb Les Hellawell: > >>> > >>>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as > >>>>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> They have > >>>>>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of > >>>>>>> economy. > >>>> > >>>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as > >>>> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the > >>>> medieval period. .. > >>>> > >>>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the > >>>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the > >>>> town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago > >>>> though some remnants remain > >>> > >>> The US system is often called 'Corporatism'. > >>> > >>> These corporations are the large companies, which practically own the > >>> country. > >>> > >>> They act under the control of some unknown entity, since they usually > >>> behave coordinated. > >> > >> The entity is not unknown. > >> > >> We call it "the marketplace". > > > > Competitive market economy is the least thing, which these corporations > > have in mind. > > > > As far as an outsider can say, these corporations want monopolies and > > aim to destroy competitors. > > > > They also do not refrain from creating cartels and conspire with enemies. > > Which is why the marketplace is regulated. Cartels, where found, are > punished really quite severely. It seems they're not anymore. Banking is down to a tiny number of majors and a bunch of weak, mostly localized, banks. TV/Internet companies keep merging so there's almost no competition. Monsanto just got bought by Bayer (if they get regulatory approval). > >> The same pressures and attractions of the business environment will lead > >> to similar behaviour. If one firm reduces prices, its competitors will > >> follow suit, and for the same reasons. If one company launches a new > >> product or service, others will have to do the same. > >> > >> No conspiracy there... > > > > The government could prevent lawless economical habits, if the > > government itself would not be a part of the same system. > > > > The common people can do whatever they like, this wouldn't change anything. > > Except that firms flourish or die at the mercy of the consumers, aka > "the common people". Too many of them don't seem to care. > >>> They seem to practise an authoritarian kind of (right winged) socialism. > >>> The behaviour is quite anti-capitalistic, but a strange form of > >>> collectivism. These collectives are organised in vertical steps, which > >>> build a vast superstructure of interlocked organisations. > >>> > >>> At the top of this ice-berg we find the Queen of England. > >> > >> Who has no actual political power and who exercises economic power only > >> as the head and administrator of the admittedly significant financial > >> holdings of the British Crown. > > > > > > Yes, the real power is not applied by her personally. For this she has > > her people. > > ... who become "her people" as decided by the electorate. She has no > say in this. Exactly. > >>> A few levels lower we find the guilds of the city of London and remains > >>> of colonial guilds, like the Virginia Company or the East India Company. > >> > >> None of which have any legal, political or economic power or rights. > > > > Well, I have found a guild that is called 'Honorable Society of > > worshipful Scientific instrument makers'. > > > > These 'instruments' seem to be all kinds of things and 'science' to them > > sounds more like warfare to me. > > So? Does this guild/society have any actual power? Do they dictate > defence procurement? Do they formulate government policy? > > > > > >> > >>> > >>> How this system work in detail, that is not known, at least not for me. > >>> > >>> But the City of London does still exist today. > >> > >> Of course it does. > >> > >> It is a *city*. > >> > >> You might as well find it suspicious that the cities of Hamburg or > >> Berlin or Frankfurt exist. > >> > > > > No, London is a city, but the 'City of London' is not. > > > > It is roughly a square-mile, which pretends to be ex-territorial to > > England, the UK and the EU. > > > > The English would better off, if they fence this in, cut water and > > power-supply and let nobody in or out. Gee, look at Thomas telling the Brits how to run their country. > The City of London is a separate and distinct legal entity from Greater > London. It existed for centuries when "London" did not have a mayor or > a city hall or any sort of administration beyond the level of individual > boroughs. -- 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]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 10:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4m0psF190tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2172355 |
On 23/09/2016 19:31, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > In article <e4k6p1Fi48qU1@mid.individual.net>, > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 23/09/2016 17:30, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> No, London is a city, but the 'City of London' is not. >>> >>> It is roughly a square-mile, which pretends to be ex-territorial to >>> England, the UK and the EU. >>> >>> The English would better off, if they fence this in, cut water and >>> power-supply and let nobody in or out. > > Gee, look at Thomas telling the Brits how to run their country. Been there, had that, graciously refused their offer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-4E8A65.18430423092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2172565 |
In article <e4m0psF190tU1@mid.individual.net>, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 23/09/2016 19:31, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > In article <e4k6p1Fi48qU1@mid.individual.net>, > > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> On 23/09/2016 17:30, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > >>> No, London is a city, but the 'City of London' is not. > >>> > >>> It is roughly a square-mile, which pretends to be ex-territorial to > >>> England, the UK and the EU. > >>> > >>> The English would better off, if they fence this in, cut water and > >>> power-supply and let nobody in or out. > > > > Gee, look at Thomas telling the Brits how to run their country. > > Been there, had that, graciously refused their offer. Indeed. -- 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]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 04:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4m6o5F2gukU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2172582 |
Am 24.09.2016 03:43, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: >>>>> No, London is a city, but the 'City of London' is not. >>>>> >>>>> It is roughly a square-mile, which pretends to be ex-territorial to >>>>> England, the UK and the EU. >>>>> >>>>> The English would better off, if they fence this in, cut water and >>>>> power-supply and let nobody in or out. >>> >>> Gee, look at Thomas telling the Brits how to run their country. >> >> Been there, had that, graciously refused their offer. > > Indeed. > I'm certainly not important. But how about the citizens of the USA? If the UK, the Queen, the guilds and/or the City of London would interfere in any respect with US politics, than sooner or later the USA will tell the UK, what they have to do. But there are more superpowers, which have also an issue with England. E.g. there is China and China had a problem with England called 'Opium war'. Then we have Russia. The trouble with Russia is related to the rise and fall of socialism. To understand the problem you should read the book 'Stalin's British training' by Greg Hallet Also India was not always happy with the British colonists, same was Africa. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 17:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e4moaoF67m2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2172602 |
On 24/09/2016 12:29, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 24.09.2016 03:43, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: > >>>>>> No, London is a city, but the 'City of London' is not. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is roughly a square-mile, which pretends to be ex-territorial to >>>>>> England, the UK and the EU. >>>>>> >>>>>> The English would better off, if they fence this in, cut water and >>>>>> power-supply and let nobody in or out. >>>> >>>> Gee, look at Thomas telling the Brits how to run their country. >>> >>> Been there, had that, graciously refused their offer. >> >> Indeed. >> > > I'm certainly not important. > > But how about the citizens of the USA? > > If the UK, the Queen, the guilds and/or the City of London would > interfere in any respect with US politics, than sooner or later the USA > will tell the UK, what they have to do. > > But there are more superpowers, which have also an issue with England. > > E.g. there is China and China had a problem with England called 'Opium > war'. > > Then we have Russia. The trouble with Russia is related to the rise and > fall of socialism. To understand the problem you should read the book > 'Stalin's British training' by Greg Hallet > > Also India was not always happy with the British colonists, same was > Africa. Would you kindly direct your eyes to a current calendar? The British Empire is dead. It is no more. It is in the past. What the British Empire did or did not do during its tenure as the big 800lb gorilla of human history is not relevant to today's United Kingdom. We do not interfere in US politics. We do not interfere in India. We no longer push opium on China. We have not done any of those things for quite some considerable time. Do you have any relevant arguments?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 23:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <aaa-3C48D8.23205823092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2172582 |
In article <hlwdjsd2-4E8A65.18430423092016@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream > up a God superior to themselves. Most > Gods have the manners and morals of a > spoiled child. Actually any form of theism, and Xianity in particular, involves far more witchraft than any atheism does!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 16:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ns3kgq$1o2g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2172320 |
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:30:33 +0200, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 23.09.2016 08:18, schrieb Alex W.: >> On 23/09/2016 12:36, Thomas Heger wrote: <snip> >>> But the City of London does still exist today. >> >> Of course it does. >> >> It is a *city*. >> >> You might as well find it suspicious that the cities of Hamburg or >> Berlin or Frankfurt exist. >> > No, London is a city, but the 'City of London' is not. Yes it is. It has a Lord Mayor and it's own police force. > It is roughly a square-mile, which pretends to be ex-territorial to > England, the UK and the EU. > > The English would better off, if they fence this in, cut water and > power-supply and let nobody in or out. No need for a fence, as it has had walls, with gates, since Roman times. Bishopsgate, Aldgate, Cripplegate and Moorgate are the names of some of them. But why would we be better off if we followed your stupid idea? -- 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]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 15:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uuuaubpujgplnadg8jt49hla45fladoj17@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2172269 |
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 04:36:49 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in alt.atheism with message-id <e4jiqaFdpvrU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >Am 22.09.2016 23:25, schrieb Les Hellawell: > >>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >> >> >>>>> They have >>>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy. >> >> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as >> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >> medieval period. .. >> >> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the >> town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago >> though some remnants remain > >The US system is often called 'Corporatism'. Not by anyone I know. > >These corporations are the large companies, which practically own the >country. Not really. > >They act under the control of some unknown entity, since they usually >behave coordinated. The mysterious Unknown that seems so prevalent. > >They seem to practise an authoritarian kind of (right winged) socialism. >The behaviour is quite anti-capitalistic, but a strange form of >collectivism. These collectives are organised in vertical steps, which >build a vast superstructure of interlocked organisations. Nothing accurate there. > >At the top of this ice-berg we find the Queen of England. That is news to me - and to most Americans. > >A few levels lower we find the guilds of the city of London and remains >of colonial guilds, like the Virginia Company or the East India Company. What is the Virginia Company? If you are talking about the US system where did London come from? > >How this system work in detail, that is not known, at least not for me. Nor to anyone else. > >But the City of London does still exist today. Most cities do. > >Also the guild exist today and still control the economy of their realm. >As far as I know, they are called 'Livery Companies'. > >TH Weird. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 02:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9o1dir.ak7.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2172173 |
Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:11:48 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> > wrote: > >> Am 22.09.2016 11:28, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: >> >>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>> >>>> >>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. > > >>>> They have >>>> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy. > > Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as > the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the > medieval period. The York Merchant Taylors Guild for example has a > magnificent medieval Guildhall one of the gems of York now open to the > public. The Merchant Aventurers Hall is even more splendid and was > built in the 14th C I once attended a banquet in there underneath the > magnificent oak framed roof > > http://www.theyorkcompany.co.uk/ > > These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the > jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the > town corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago > though some remnants remain The Industrial Age, did away with most guilds and trade groups. My own family name comes from a family which I understand was deeply intrenched in the shoe make guild in Scotland from the late 1400 to early 1700s. Original ancestor emigrated was a British Army Boot maker and guild member. His trade was listed as a cordwinder, in his will dated mid 1700s. >>>> The have also a set of parasitic life-forms, they call 'aristocracy'. > > Not so much parasitic these days, not since the inheritance tax swept > away a lot of their wealth. > > Les Hellawell > Greetings from: > YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County > > Martin Luther wrote: > "Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding > > Which means that if Luther practised what he preached > nothing he ever said made any sense > -- Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms. John Cleese on Stupidity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ns69fi$1fsv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2172599 |
On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 02:22:49 +0000, Bob Officer wrote: > Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:11:48 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >> wrote: >> >>> Am 22.09.2016 11:28, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: >>> >>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >> >> >>>>> They have also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all >>>>> aspects of economy. >> >> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as the >> City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >> medieval period. The York Merchant Taylors Guild for example has a >> magnificent medieval Guildhall one of the gems of York now open to the >> public. The Merchant Aventurers Hall is even more splendid and was >> built in the 14th C I once attended a banquet in there underneath the >> magnificent oak framed roof >> >> http://www.theyorkcompany.co.uk/ >> >> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the town corporations >> but as I say all that was swept away long ago though some remnants >> remain > > The Industrial Age, did away with most guilds and trade groups. My own > family name comes from a family which I understand was deeply intrenched > in the shoe make guild in Scotland from the late 1400 to early 1700s. > Original ancestor emigrated was a British Army Boot maker and guild > member. His trade was listed as a cordwinder, in his will dated mid > 1700s. Are you certain? AFAIK, they were called cordwainers. There was a Cordwainers School in London. http://www.arts.ac.uk/fashion/about/cordwainers/ -- 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]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 05:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9o4d31.mdf.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2172872 |
Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 02:22:49 +0000, Bob Officer wrote: > >> Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> wrote: >>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:11:48 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 22.09.2016 11:28, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: >>>> >>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >>>>>>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >>> >>> >>>>>> They have also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all >>>>>> aspects of economy. >>> >>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as the >>> City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >>> medieval period. The York Merchant Taylors Guild for example has a >>> magnificent medieval Guildhall one of the gems of York now open to the >>> public. The Merchant Aventurers Hall is even more splendid and was >>> built in the 14th C I once attended a banquet in there underneath the >>> magnificent oak framed roof >>> >>> http://www.theyorkcompany.co.uk/ >>> >>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the town corporations >>> but as I say all that was swept away long ago though some remnants >>> remain >> >> The Industrial Age, did away with most guilds and trade groups. My own >> family name comes from a family which I understand was deeply intrenched >> in the shoe make guild in Scotland from the late 1400 to early 1700s. >> Original ancestor emigrated was a British Army Boot maker and guild >> member. His trade was listed as a cordwinder, in his will dated mid >> 1700s. > > Are you certain? AFAIK, they were called cordwainers. There was a > Cordwainers School in London. > http://www.arts.ac.uk/fashion/about/cordwainers/ I am going by the spelling on the document. I only saw a photographic copy of the document because the county recorder didn't want to subject the document to the pressure of a photocopier's glass plate. It was photographed by a 3.5x4.5 film camera I loaned my mother. The document resided in the archives at Carlisle, PA county recorders office. One of their oldest documents in their archives. It is dated 1762 when the will was executed. He was from Scotland, and some of the family members still reside in the area, a few migrated to Australia, and New Zealand, Nova Scotia. As far I we can trace back we are all family. -- Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms. John Cleese on Stupidity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 15:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ns8ron$145l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2173102 |
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 05:32:47 +0000, Bob Officer wrote: > Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 02:22:49 +0000, Bob Officer wrote: >> >>> Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:11:48 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Am 22.09.2016 11:28, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, >>>>>>>> as opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> They have also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all >>>>>>> aspects of economy. >>>> >>>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as >>>> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >>>> medieval period. The York Merchant Taylors Guild for example has a >>>> magnificent medieval Guildhall one of the gems of York now open to >>>> the public. The Merchant Aventurers Hall is even more splendid and >>>> was built in the 14th C I once attended a banquet in there underneath >>>> the magnificent oak framed roof >>>> >>>> http://www.theyorkcompany.co.uk/ >>>> >>>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >>>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the town >>>> corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago though >>>> some remnants remain >>> >>> The Industrial Age, did away with most guilds and trade groups. My own >>> family name comes from a family which I understand was deeply >>> intrenched in the shoe make guild in Scotland from the late 1400 to >>> early 1700s. Original ancestor emigrated was a British Army Boot maker >>> and guild member. His trade was listed as a cordwinder, in his will >>> dated mid 1700s. >> >> Are you certain? AFAIK, they were called cordwainers. There was a >> Cordwainers School in London. >> http://www.arts.ac.uk/fashion/about/cordwainers/ > > I am going by the spelling on the document. I only saw a photographic > copy of the document because the county recorder didn't want to subject > the document to the pressure of a photocopier's glass plate. It was > photographed by a 3.5x4.5 film camera I loaned my mother. The document > resided in the archives at Carlisle, PA county recorders office. One of > their oldest documents in their archives. It is dated 1762 when the will > was executed. > > He was from Scotland, and some of the family members still reside in the > area, a few migrated to Australia, and New Zealand, Nova Scotia. As far > I we can trace back we are all family. Although the meaning is clearly the same, I can only assume that the US or Scottish spelling differs from the London spelling. In the 18th century, the spelling of many words had not yet been fixed. -- 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]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9o65sv.13e.19.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2173242 |
Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 05:32:47 +0000, Bob Officer wrote: > >> Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 02:22:49 +0000, Bob Officer wrote: >>> >>>> Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:11:48 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Am 22.09.2016 11:28, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, >>>>>>>>> as opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> They have also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all >>>>>>>> aspects of economy. >>>>> >>>>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as >>>>> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in the >>>>> medieval period. The York Merchant Taylors Guild for example has a >>>>> magnificent medieval Guildhall one of the gems of York now open to >>>>> the public. The Merchant Aventurers Hall is even more splendid and >>>>> was built in the 14th C I once attended a banquet in there underneath >>>>> the magnificent oak framed roof >>>>> >>>>> http://www.theyorkcompany.co.uk/ >>>>> >>>>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >>>>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the town >>>>> corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago though >>>>> some remnants remain >>>> >>>> The Industrial Age, did away with most guilds and trade groups. My own >>>> family name comes from a family which I understand was deeply >>>> intrenched in the shoe make guild in Scotland from the late 1400 to >>>> early 1700s. Original ancestor emigrated was a British Army Boot maker >>>> and guild member. His trade was listed as a cordwinder, in his will >>>> dated mid 1700s. >>> >>> Are you certain? AFAIK, they were called cordwainers. There was a >>> Cordwainers School in London. >>> http://www.arts.ac.uk/fashion/about/cordwainers/ >> >> I am going by the spelling on the document. I only saw a photographic >> copy of the document because the county recorder didn't want to subject >> the document to the pressure of a photocopier's glass plate. It was >> photographed by a 3.5x4.5 film camera I loaned my mother. The document >> resided in the archives at Carlisle, PA county recorders office. One of >> their oldest documents in their archives. It is dated 1762 when the will >> was executed. >> >> He was from Scotland, and some of the family members still reside in the >> area, a few migrated to Australia, and New Zealand, Nova Scotia. As far >> I we can trace back we are all family. > > Although the meaning is clearly the same, I can only assume that the US or > Scottish spelling differs from the London spelling. In the 18th century, > the spelling of many words had not yet been fixed. > I agree, the written language was not as fixed as early the currently held common belief. However discovery of guild records allowed members of family to push back the family tree a few hundred years earlier than we had before. We went from a single will with a birthdate and place in late 1600s to the late 1300s. -- Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms. John Cleese on Stupidity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 01:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ns9s98$krh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2173323 |
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 21:42:21 +0000, Bob Officer wrote: > Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 05:32:47 +0000, Bob Officer wrote: >> >>> Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 02:22:49 +0000, Bob Officer wrote: >>>> >>>>> Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:11:48 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 22.09.2016 11:28, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of >>>>>>>>>> government, >>>>>>>>>> as opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They have also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all >>>>>>>>> aspects of economy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not for a long time now. Guilds operated in Corporate towns such as >>>>>> the City of London and the City of York. Their golden age was in >>>>>> the medieval period. The York Merchant Taylors Guild for example >>>>>> has a magnificent medieval Guildhall one of the gems of York now >>>>>> open to the public. The Merchant Aventurers Hall is even more >>>>>> splendid and was built in the 14th C I once attended a banquet in >>>>>> there underneath the magnificent oak framed roof >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.theyorkcompany.co.uk/ >>>>>> >>>>>> These Guilds controlled all aspect of their trade within the >>>>>> jurisdiction of the town and its member dominated the town >>>>>> corporations but as I say all that was swept away long ago though >>>>>> some remnants remain >>>>> >>>>> The Industrial Age, did away with most guilds and trade groups. My >>>>> own family name comes from a family which I understand was deeply >>>>> intrenched in the shoe make guild in Scotland from the late 1400 to >>>>> early 1700s. Original ancestor emigrated was a British Army Boot >>>>> maker and guild member. His trade was listed as a cordwinder, in his >>>>> will dated mid 1700s. >>>> >>>> Are you certain? AFAIK, they were called cordwainers. There was a >>>> Cordwainers School in London. >>>> http://www.arts.ac.uk/fashion/about/cordwainers/ >>> >>> I am going by the spelling on the document. I only saw a photographic >>> copy of the document because the county recorder didn't want to >>> subject the document to the pressure of a photocopier's glass plate. >>> It was photographed by a 3.5x4.5 film camera I loaned my mother. The >>> document resided in the archives at Carlisle, PA county recorders >>> office. One of their oldest documents in their archives. It is dated >>> 1762 when the will was executed. >>> >>> He was from Scotland, and some of the family members still reside in >>> the area, a few migrated to Australia, and New Zealand, Nova Scotia. >>> As far I we can trace back we are all family. >> >> Although the meaning is clearly the same, I can only assume that the US >> or Scottish spelling differs from the London spelling. In the 18th >> century, the spelling of many words had not yet been fixed. >> > I agree, the written language was not as fixed as early the currently > held common belief. However discovery of guild records allowed members > of family to push back the family tree a few hundred years earlier than > we had before. We went from a single will with a birthdate and place in > late 1600s to the late 1300s. Well done. I can only get my paternal tree back to about 1650 in the Netherlands and my maternal tree to about 1600 in Italy. -- 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]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 15:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-7E66D7.15304022092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2172152 |
In article <e4is8cF8tmbU1@mid.individual.net>, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 22.09.2016 11:28, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: > > >>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as > >>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. > >>> > >> > >> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. They have > >> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy. > >> The have also a set of parasitic life-forms, they call 'aristocracy'. > >> > >> > >> Now what of these features do you find in the USA??? > > > > Most of them. The President is both the Queen and the Prime Minister. > > And we most definitely have our aristocracy; we call them the 1%. This > > "Guilds" thing I don't know, but the legislative branch, the executive, > > and the Fed run the economy. > > > > So you call your parasitic life-forms '1%'. > > And your president is the Queen? > > Well, yes, sure,... > > ... somehow I thought it would be this way. The Queen is the Head of State and the Prime Minister is the Head of Government. In the US, the President is both. -- 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]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 18:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0no8ubpoltq1fj3sop6lle270v1m8a0g4c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2172193 |
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:30:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >In article <e4is8cF8tmbU1@mid.individual.net>, > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > >> Am 22.09.2016 11:28, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: >> >> >>> Sure it does. It's part of the Anglo-Saxon system of government, as >> >>> opposed to the Roman or Napoleonic system. >> >>> >> >> >> >> As far as I know, the Anglo-Saxons in England have a Queen. They have >> >> also Guilds, which control the jurisdiction and all aspects of economy. >> >> The have also a set of parasitic life-forms, they call 'aristocracy'. >> >> >> >> >> >> Now what of these features do you find in the USA??? >> > >> > Most of them. The President is both the Queen and the Prime Minister. >> > And we most definitely have our aristocracy; we call them the 1%. This >> > "Guilds" thing I don't know, but the legislative branch, the executive, >> > and the Fed run the economy. >> > >> >> So you call your parasitic life-forms '1%'. >> >> And your president is the Queen? >> >> Well, yes, sure,... >> >> ... somehow I thought it would be this way. > >The Queen is the Head of State and the Prime Minister is the Head of >Government. In the US, the President is both. The Queen is only nominally the head of state - King Charles I was executed for usurping parliament. When the monarchy was restored, Charles II was invited back, but just as a figurehead. This was cemented when James II wanted to return the CofE to Roman control, and hence the country, and William III (William of Orange) was made King. Something like 350 years ago. When William was crowned he swore a new Coronation oath, which pledged himself to obey the will of parliament. And the Guilds have been purely ceremonial for a similar length of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web