Reading versions that disagree is a fruitful endeavor.

mmmm I love fruit. Sorry I'm hungry

Nice try, but a poor effort, History decided that we were right and you're wrong I thought it was an excellent effort actually...the answer was as expected.

Now that we've agreed that it is History that has made the decision (or a general consensus of those writing it, any way you want to define it)...how 'bout you drop it for about 40 years and then we'll pick this up?:rolleyes: :cool: :eek: :D :p

mmmm I love fruit. Sorry I'm hungry

Careful...:eek:

Now that we've agreed that it is History that has made the decision (or a general consensus of those writing it, any way you want to define it)...how 'bout you drop it for about 40 years and then we'll pick this up?:rolleyes: :cool: :eek: :D :p

Now now, you guys take it easy on Rich. He's probably well into the bottle by now... :cool:

He's probably well into the bottle by now... :cool:
and a chinky :cool:

Rich you seem like you think you know everything,
I know everything that I remember :cool:

Of course, reading different versions doesn't do much to broaden your perspective if they all pretty much say the same thing. Reading versions that disagree is a fruitful endeavor.


ver·sion (vûr'zhən, -shən)
n.
A description or account from one point of view, especially as opposed to another: Your version of the accident differs from mine.



That's why one reads more than ONE version


please try and pay attention

Completely indiscriminate bombing in Lebanon in areas of Christian civilians without any connection to Hezbollah. And does the US rebuke Israel for these actions? Of course not, it actually encourages them to continue...

Oi you whatisname! (that's Tony Bliar Mr. President) if the Syrians stopped their shit it would all be over.
Well done George, aren't you intelligent:rolleyes:

Completely indiscriminate bombing in Lebanon in areas of Christian civilians without any connection to Hezbollah. And does the US rebuke Israel for these actions? Of course not, it actually encourages them to continue...

Why should the US rebuke a country defending itself?

Why should the US rebuke a country defending itself? How is bunging rockets into civilian populations "defending itself"?

How is bunging rockets into civilian populations "defending itself"?
That's the American way too, I wonder why we didn't blow up Northern Ireland just because a small number of terrorists were based there? :rolleyes:

That's the American way too, I wonder why we didn't blow up Northern Ireland just because a small number of terrorists were based there? :rolleyes:

After 51 pages, and my absence for a month; you still can’t seem to sort out the facts from your distorted point of view.

Well done old chap.

And once again Richard the United States did NOT take Texas from Mexico. Please try to get this one fact straight.

General Santa Anna invited the Anglos to Texas to settle it and grow the economy. After a prolonged war with Spain he decided to change the rules and began pressing the Texans. So they naturally resisted.

After his cowardly, failed, attempt at evading capture during the battle at San Jacinto, he acquiesced and SOLD Texas its independents.

Several years later Texas joined the Union as a State.

After 51 pages, and my absence for a month; you still can’t seem to sort out the facts from your distorted point of view.
I was wondering where you've been. What have you been doing with yourself?

After 51 pages, and my absence for a month; you still can’t seem to sort out the facts from your distorted point of view.

Well done old chap.

And once again Richard the United States did NOT take Texas from Mexico. Please try to get this one fact straight.

General Santa Anna invited the Anglos to Texas to settle it and grow the economy. After a prolonged war with Spain he decided to change the rules and began pressing the Texans. So they naturally resisted.

After his cowardly, failed, attempt at evading capture during the battle at San Jacinto, he acquiesced and SOLD Texas its independents.

Several years later Texas joined the Union as a State.

Good to see ya back

After 51 pages, and my absence for a month; you still can’t seem to sort out the facts from your distorted point of view.

Well done old chap.

And once again Richard the United States did NOT take Texas from Mexico. Please try to get this one fact straight.

General Santa Anna invited the Anglos to Texas to settle it and grow the economy. After a prolonged war with Spain he decided to change the rules and began pressing the Texans. So they naturally resisted.

After his cowardly, failed, attempt at evading capture during the battle at San Jacinto, he acquiesced and SOLD Texas its independents.

Several years later Texas joined the Union as a State.

What are you blathering about now and who mentioned Texas ?:rolleyes:

What are you blathering about now and who mentioned Texas ?:rolleyes:

You’re slipping old man. Do you think maybe the gins getting the better of you?


Well let's see, everybody elses version of Christianity, love thine enemy as thine own and turn the other cheek, Thow shalt not kill. :cool:

The American version, let's bomb the bast*rds, thow shalt not murder, unless you're sure of getting away with it under the statute of limitations :rolleyes:



My God, it's worse than I thought, would you like a definitive list? :rolleyes:

Yes, please.

Where to start:confused: :rolleyes:
Iran, Cuba, 'Nam, South America, Iraq, China, Russia, Afghanistan, Hawaii, The Phillipines, Iran, (again) Texas, The West Indies

You’re slipping old man. Do you think maybe the gins getting the better of you?
I don't drink gin and which part of the quotes you've posted do you have a problem understanding ?

I don't drink gin and which part of the quotes you've posted do you have a problem understanding ?

No more than say, a human, would lack the ability to observe an ant.

I was merely pointing out that your unrelenting reference to The US "taking" Texas is fundamentally flawed, and your persistent exertions diminishes all the rest of your holier- than- thou post.

Just thought you would want to maintain your omniscience.

I was merely pointing out that your unrelenting reference to The US "taking" Texas is fundamentally flawed,
I mentioned it once, have you been drinking ?:rolleyes:
now what problem do you have regarding Americas gun ho method with international politics

I mentioned it once, have you been drinking ?:rolleyes:


You asked the question and he answered it.

How is bunging rockets into civilian populations "defending itself"?

because thats where the missiles, that are being fired into their country, which came before Isreal fired anything, are coming from.

You asked the question and he answered it.
not correctly he didn't :rolleyes:

because thats where the missiles, that are being fired into their country, which came before Isreal fired anything, are coming from.
Odd, I thought that the first missiles came in the opposite direction

Odd, I thought that the first missiles came in the opposite direction

Does anyone actually know when the shooting started; any more I tent to disbelieve everyone connected to the facts.

It's a sad commentary when everything you hear has to be put on trial.

Odd, I thought that the first missiles came in the opposite direction

You do? What/who would make you have these thoughts?

Are the Israeli soldiers, that they are saying were kidnapped, are they just lost and that never happened either?

Are the Israeli soldiers, that they are saying were kidnapped, are they just lost and that never happened either?

No more so than the suspects Israel is holding in its prisons at the minute

and today Israel targets an International Red Cross convoy (an act in direct contravention of the GC) but still the a$$hole Bush refuses to condemn them.

and today Israel targets an International Red Cross convoy (an act in direct contravention of the GC) but still the a$$hole Bush refuses to condemn them.
And why would he? Seems like they deserve it. Israel needs to take Labenon, and then be done with it. Israel taking Arab countries, America taking Arab countries, pretty soon they won't have anyplace to go :rolleyes: Go Israel.

And why would he? Seems like they deserve it. Israel needs to take Labenon, and then be done with it. Israel taking Arab countries, America taking Arab countries, pretty soon they won't have anyplace to go :rolleyes: Go Israel.
Just try to remember your post next time you find skyscrapers used as runways and everyone is whining "whaddid we do?" and "why does everyone hate us so bad?"...

Just try to remember your post next time you find skyscrapers used as runways and everyone is whining "whaddid we do?" and "why does everyone hate us so bad?"...
Apparently the answer to that question is: "Because they have no concept of irony."

After 51 pages, and my absence for a month; you still can’t seem to sort out the facts from your distorted point of view.

Well done old chap.

And once again Richard the United States did NOT take Texas from Mexico. Please try to get this one fact straight.

General Santa Anna invited the Anglos to Texas to settle it and grow the economy. After a prolonged war with Spain he decided to change the rules and began pressing the Texans. So they naturally resisted.

After his cowardly, failed, attempt at evading capture during the battle at San Jacinto, he acquiesced and SOLD Texas its independents.

Several years later Texas joined the Union as a State.

J's version differs wildly from the history I've read, just a short quote from wikipedia

In 1827, John Q. Adams offered Mexico USD $1 million to buy Texas, which was rejected. Two years later, in 1829, Andrew Jackson tried again with an offer of $5 million dollars, which Mexico also rejected. The same year Spain attempted to re-conquer their former colony. Santa Anna swiftly defeated the invading Spanish army at Tampico and was hailed as a national hero. In 1830, Mexico became alarmed by the illegal immigrants crossing the border from the U.S. into Mexico

Guess what America is alarmed at the illegals crossing from Mexico.
Wht's that saying " what goes around comes around"

Brian

Apparently the answer to that question is: "Because they have no concept of irony."
Or true feelings described as irony to deflect criticism of being too contentious :p

Just try to remember your post next time you find skyscrapers used as runways and everyone is whining "whaddid we do?" and "why does everyone hate us so bad?"...
And that is the EXACT reason we need to keep on keep'n on.

And that is the EXACT reason we need to keep on keep'n on.
Pre-emptive retaliation? Hmmmm, okay. But since warmonger Bush has his fanatical sights set on just about everywhere, is it okay if the rest of the world forms an alliance and takes you out first?
Just gimme the bit of paper, I'll sign up now

Pre-emptive retaliation? Hmmmm, okay. But since warmonger Bush has his fanatical sights set on just about everywhere, is it okay if the rest of the world forms an alliance and takes you out first?
Just gimme the bit of paper, I'll sign up now
Define "Everywhere"?
I have never heard W speak of going anywhere else except maybe Iran or N. Korea. Show me a quote where he said "Iceland is next!"
Typical Liberal Racist mutterings.

Define "Everywhere"?
I have never heard W speak of going anywhere else except maybe Iran or N. Korea. Show me a quote where he said "Iceland is next!"
Typical Liberal Racist mutterings.
That oil youre stealing, ooops I mean 'liberating', now will only last so long you know. Especially at the rate you profligate a$$holes get through it. Then you'll need to look elsewhere - after all, we dont want the po' ole' yank forking out a proper price for his gas, do we? There'd be riots, and thats not good PR ;)

If you lived in a country 15 1/2 times the size of Great Britian, ya'll might use a little more gas too. ;)

That oil youre stealing, ooops I mean 'liberating', now will only last so long you know. Especially at the rate you profligate a$$holes get through it. Then you'll need to look elsewhere - after all, we dont want the po' ole' yank forking out a proper price for his gas, do we? There'd be riots, and thats not good PR ;)
proper - as defined by YOU! HA
See here is the thing, the base price for a xx of gas is pretty much the same. So if your base price and the USA's base price is the same, but you are paying much more for the same xx amount of gas, how is that our fault all of a sudden? And why would care what we pay? Sounds more like class envy (or something like it) more than anything.
Oh, poor little brit's, getting screwed by their gov. so lash out at the american's. Whine, Whine, Whine
Yawn

If you lived in a country 15 1/2 times the size of Great Britian, ya'll might use a little more gas too. ;)
Personally I think its more to do with 8mpg SUV's being so popular, rather than greater distances to travel. After all, didnt you guys exempt pickup trucks from legislation requiring minimum mpg coz you lazy gits couldnt be bothered or lacked the skill to make them?
Whatever, the point is that oil is a finite resource, and that fat lazy inconsiderate yankee retards consume it at 4x a per capita average. But hey, youre alright, so thats okay, isnt it? Fook everyone else, they dont need it in their p1ssant little countries...

You know what I like about you? I can say pretty much anything I want and no one can accuse me of being unprovoked. I mean, I make a comment in jest and you respond with no less than six insults. You have yet to contribute a single thought to these discussions that we haven't all heard a million times before and...wait a minute...

Hmmm....which regular is never logged on at the same time as nomorehype? FoFa, are you arguing with youself for giggles? Ken, are you bored and lookin' to poke the hornet's nest. Out with it. :D :p

You know what I like about you? I can say pretty much anything I want..
Awww, do you not get to say whats on your (undoubtedly tiny) mind anyway? You'd be the first yank yet to let diplomacy get in the way of venting their spleen. You do have a spleen..?
...and no one can accuse me of being unprovoked. I mean, I make a comment in jest and you respond with no less than six insults.
Your comments are "only in jest", but my comments are not. Hmmm, okay... The really funny bit is you dont even realise just how freaking hypocritical you are! Sorry, but I'm afraid you gave up rights to claiming moral high ground some time ago :)
You have yet to contribute a single thought to these discussions that we haven't all heard a million times before and...wait a minute...
Maybe because theres more than a grain of truth in them? By the way, nicely obfuscated or not, your complete inability to answer the post is noted :)

Your comments are "only in jest", but my comments are not. Hmmm, okay... The really funny bit is you dont even realise just how freaking hypocritical you are! Sorry, but I'm afraid you gave up rights to claiming moral high ground some time ago
Hypocritical? Didn't see it, but then again
WE HAVE MORE NUKES THAN YOU DO, WE CAN BLOW YOU AWAY!
NAY NAY NAY :p
Go climb back in your hole, we broke away from europe for a reason, people like you!

Hypocritical? Didn't see it, but then again
WE HAVE MORE NUKES THAN YOU DO, WE CAN BLOW YOU AWAY!
NAY NAY NAY :p
Just checking, is that some of the "irony" from a few posts back, the "in jest" from a few posts back, or do you mean it? Sorry for needing clarification, but I wouldnt want to misinterpret you
Go climb back in your hole, we broke away from europe for a reason, people like you!
No, you 'broke away' because no other country wanted to be associated with civilian-murdering illegally-invading terrorists. Otherwise known as Americans :rolleyes:

No, you 'broke away' because no other country wanted to be associated with civilian-murdering illegally-invading terrorists. Otherwise known as Americans :rolleyes:
No, it was the English we saw (and it only counts what we saw) as the dictating, over taxing (ok now we have the democrates for that), evil civilian-murdering we had to run out.

OH, and illegally-invading terrorists, don't think so, we have the NUKES so WE set the rules, and we say, piss off.

we have the NUKES so WE set the rules, and we say, piss off.
So does everybody else nowadays and guess what they say to you, UP YOURS:rolleyes:

Personally I think its more to do with 8mpg SUV's being so popular, rather than greater distances to travel.

Wow. Did you just make that up? Which model(s) are you referring to? Can you provide links to the gas mileage ratings?

Awww, do you not get to say whats on your (undoubtedly tiny) mind anyway?

How condescending. Kraj is one of the more intelligent and reasonable posters on this forum. He is always willing to back up his arguments with sources, and he tries to stay level headed, in spite of insults being slung at him.

Your comments are "only in jest", but my comments are not. Hmmm, okay... The really funny bit is you dont even realise just how freaking hypocritical you are!

Pot-->Kettle-->Black

Sorry, but I'm afraid you gave up rights to claiming moral high ground some time ago

As did you. Although, you have over 100 posts and they are all in this thread and you've only been a member for a couple of weeks. I'm more apt to think that you are just some crackpot that stumbled across this thread, or perhaps another member that has signed up under another name to have a jest.

or perhaps another member that has signed up under another name to have a jest.
I think it's Josey :eek: :D

Wow. Did you just make that up? Which model(s) are you referring to? Can you provide links to the gas mileage ratings?
Hummer? Lincoln Navigator? Chevy Suburban? Look up their websites and do your own damn research
As did you. Although, you have over 100 posts and they are all in this thread and you've only been a member for a couple of weeks. I'm more apt to think that you are just some crackpot that stumbled across this thread, or perhaps another member that has signed up under another name to have a jest. You can be 'apt to think' what you like. Wont make it the truth, but you can think it.

Hummer? Lincoln Navigator? Chevy Suburban? Look up their websites and do your own damn research

I did. Nowhere did I see 8MPG listed. Hummers would probably be the closest, but they are the least common SUV to see on the road, due to their outrageous price tag. However, you're the one who posted the comment. It is on you to post sources to back up your argument. No need to be so snippety, unless you have a reason to be defensive. Don't bother doing it for me though, I'm through talking to you. I was just trying to make a point.


You can be 'apt to think' what you like. Wont make it the truth, but you can think it.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's what makes the world so diverse, isn't it? I've formed mine based upon your comment history, and unless you drastically change your attitude and start debating in a more respectful manner without needlessly insulting people, I'm not likely to change it. End of discussion.

I think it's Josey :eek: :D

Are you sure? :D I was thinking more along the lines of nobody nowhere or lushy. Now that brings back memories. Too bad such treasures were lost in the forum hack. :D

I did. Nowhere did I see 8MPG listed. However, you're the one who posted the comment. It is on you to post sources to back up your argument.
Sigh... Okay, try this Hummer (http://trucks.about.com/cs/suvreviews/a/hummer_fuel04.htm)
Nope, its not 8, its 9.6mpg. I cant be bothered to actually sit and input it all into Excel, but I'd be willing to bet that if we added together the average consumption of all vehicles for sale in the US, and all vehicles for sale in the UK, the result would be 50% worse economy for the yank tanks.

Sigh... Okay, try this Hummer (http://trucks.about.com/cs/suvreviews/a/hummer_fuel04.htm)
Nope, its not 8, its 9.6mpg. I cant be bothered to actually sit and input it all into Excel, but I'd be willing to bet that if we added together the average consumption of all vehicles for sale in the US, and all vehicles for sale in the UK, the result would be 50% worse economy for the yank tanks.

You're right, I edited my original message a few minutes ago to reflect that. However, as stated above, Hummers aren't all that popular because they are so darn expensive. Only rich yuppies who don't care about gas prices/mileage will be seen driving those.

You're right, I edited my original message a few minutes ago to reflect that. However, as stated above, Hummers aren't all that popular because they are so darn expensive. Only rich yuppies who don't care about gas prices/mileage will be seen driving those.
And the Chevy Suburban (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/050912/12suv.div.htm)? Or Ford Expedition (http://www.carprices.com/research/make/ford/2005_ford_expedition.html)?

And the Chevy Suburban (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/050912/12suv.div.htm)? Or Ford Expedition (http://www.carprices.com/research/make/ford/2005_ford_expedition.html)?

I thought those were large enough to be classified as trucks and not SUV's. :confused:

Cindy, seriously. I commend your efforts, but this guy is not worth your time. If you feel like taking a pot shot at him, have fun. But he hasn't said a single thing since arriving on this forums to indicate he is a reasonable person worth discussing anything with. He just wants to pick fights and then whine when someone punches him. Normally I'm all about shutting idiots up for the sake of the people who might be influenced by them, but I can't imagine anyone is reading his spew and thinking he makes a bit of sense. I mean, even people who generally agree with him like Colin have got to be shaking their heads at him.

Rich is 10 times more interesting and 100 times more charming than this dweeb.

Cindy, seriously. I commend your efforts, but this guy is not worth your time. If you feel like taking a pot shot at him, have fun. But he hasn't said a single thing since arriving on this forums to indicate he is a reasonable person worth discussing anything with. He just wants to pick fights and then whine when someone punches him. Normally I'm all about shutting idiots up for the sake of the people who might be influenced by them, but I can't imagine anyone is reading his spew and thinking he makes a bit of sense. I mean, even people who generally agree with him like Colin have got to be shaking their heads at him.

Rich is 10 times more interesting and 100 times more charming than this dweeb.

Agreed, Kraj

Calling Americans "a$$holes" and his quote here:
Pre-emptive retaliation? Hmmmm, okay. But since warmonger Bush has his fanatical sights set on just about everywhere, is it okay if the rest of the world forms an alliance and takes you out first?
Just gimme the bit of paper, I'll sign up now

My Dad use to tell me, when I was growing up, "anyone can be tough on the phone and in a car." This was before computers so I guess he would need to add, "and behind a keyboard."

My Dad use to tell me, when I was growing up, "anyone can be tough on the phone and in a car."
Or when stood behind a gun or when dropping bombs from 30,000 feet or when the brain is missing aka GWB:rolleyes:

(ok now we have the democrates for that),
What are democrates ?:confused:

I mean, even people who generally agree with him like Colin have got to be shaking their heads at him.


Can I just say I distance myself from his comments - I never call people names and wouldn't in any way say Greg has a "tiny" mind. I agree with Cindy's comments about Greg.

I am shaking my head - stirring things up or having a little pop at Dan / Ken / Matt et al, is one thing, but being personally insulting isn't my (nor Rich's) style.

Col

Kraj is one of the more intelligent and reasonable posters on this forum. He is always willing to back up his arguments with sources, and he tries to stay level headed, in spite of insults being slung at him.


Just like Colin and me then :eek: :cool: :D

Just a quick visit before getting back to working on my tan:D

I often wonder if people who complain about the size of American cars have ever visited the states, I wouldn't want to drive my little hatch on some of their out of city roads , nor would the engine take the high mileages needed to cover the country, I didn't notice too many large SUVs in the cities as a %, and there are loads over here mainly used for the school run.

Also when quoting MPG remember that the us gallon like their billion is smaller than ours.

the diff in price is almost if not entirely down to Tax as has been stated, by all means argue , but try to remain sensible.

Brian

...the us gallon like their billion is smaller than ours.

Brian

Our gallon and billion are different? I just thought you used liters instead of gallons :confused: And isn't a billion simply a thousand million everywhere?

1,000,000,000

:confused: :confused:

Our gallon is 4.5 litres whereas yours I think is only 4 liters.

Our Billion was, when I was a lad , 1 million million ie 12 zeroes hence the bi from the Latin for 2

Brian

Our gallon is 4.5 litres whereas yours I think is only 4 liters.

Our Billion was, when I was a lad , 1 million million ie 12 zeroes hence the bi from the Latin for 2
actually, 1 US gallons = 3.7854118 liters, but the US vs UK gallon and the billion thing I was not aware of...hmmm...learn something new everyday. I knew there was a reason I hang around this place:D

Thanks, Brian

You do have a spleen..?


Okay, this is one of the most imaginative insults I've heard in a long while. :D
What a bizarre thing to ask!

My God, what you miss by going home, eh?

OH, and illegally-invading terrorists, don't think so, we have the NUKES so WE set the rules, and we say, piss off.

Fair point, well made, sir.
Now, back...slowly...away...from...the...button. ;)

So does everybody else nowadays and guess what they say to you, UP YOURS

Another well-reasoned argument. Congratulations on that one. :D

What are democrates ?

Where you store democrats, for shipping purposes?

I thought those were large enough to be classified as trucks and not SUV's. :confused:
Afternoon! Well I see my friends have been busy during my overnight absence :) . Ah well... I dont understand this distinction between a 'truck' and an 'SUV'. I mean, genuinely, what does it matter what group you put it in - compact, sub-compact, SUV, truck, bleedin' leviathan, it still comes down to this:
The average vehicle in the US used for domestic purposes gets a significantly lower mpg than its equivalent vehicle in the UK, or Europe generally. This policy of high consumption simply because it can be afforded at the pump* is the symbol of excess that leads to even moderate people thinking that the US doesnt give a monkeys about nations other than themselves, or the future when either all the oil runs out or when the new iceage comes along tomorrow, whichever arrives first.
The less-visible costs, including lives lost in conflicts, seem at least to be gaining a little exposure - witness the bumper stickers talking about how buying an SUV is putting dollars in terrorist pockets.

Cindy, seriously. I commend your efforts, but this guy is not worth your time. If you feel like taking a pot shot at him, have fun. But he hasn't said a single thing since arriving on this forums to indicate he is a reasonable person worth discussing anything with. He just wants to pick fights and then whine when someone punches him. Normally I'm all about shutting idiots up for the sake of the people who might be influenced by them, but I can't imagine anyone is reading his spew and thinking he makes a bit of sense. I mean, even people who generally agree with him like Colin have got to be shaking their heads at him.

Rich is 10 times more interesting and 100 times more charming than this dweeb.
Awww, and I thought you cared :D
Now Kraj, if you choose to find my comments and/or mannerisms unworthy of your response, hey thats your choice. But do try not influence others who may be enlightened, eh? I dont make any sense? Sorry, you consider US policy in Afghanistan, the Kyoto treaty and the lack of an American signature, Guantanamo Bay and its contravention of Geneva Convention, etc etc to be all irrelevant? You might not like the style, buddy, but Im afraid the topics themselves are harder to debase :rolleyes:

My Dad use to tell me, when I was growing up, "anyone can be tough on the phone and in a car." This was before computers so I guess he would need to add, "and behind a keyboard."
I genuinely believe that America with its current policies is A Bad Thing(tm) for the rest of the world, and if there ever was a formal conflict between them and Europe I would most certainly sign up. What precisely is wrong with admitting that?

Where you store democrats, for shipping purposes?
I thought democrates was Socrates half-brother?

actually, 1 US gallons = 3.7854118 liters,
Yes, and in answer to a previous post about comparing like for like, I did try to find sources from UK sites but didnt come across them in a quick search. We're still rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic though - like I said before the average consumption is still a hell of a lot higher. In the UK, Land Rover sell a 4.6 litre (dunno what that is in ci like you use) Range Rover with positively horrific consumption, however a search of registered vehicles last year suggested that fewer than 2% of buyers chose this over its diesel engined equivalent.

By the way, sorry for the multiple posts - there was a lot to reply to while I was away

By the way, sorry for the multiple posts -
some of us prefer it that way :eek:

I genuinely believe that America with its current policies is A Bad Thing(tm) for the rest of the world, and if there ever was a formal conflict between them and Europe I would most certainly sign up. What precisely is wrong with admitting that?

"what precisely is wrong with admitting that?" I guess nothing, if that is how you truly feel. At the time, it just sounded like big talk coming from behind a keyboard. If you really feel that strongly about all these issues and you really believe we are as bad as you think we are and if there ever was a "formal conflict" between us and you wanted to sign up, then I guess we'll see ya when you get here.

Sigh... Okay, try this Hummer (http://trucks.about.com/cs/suvreviews/a/hummer_fuel04.htm)
Nope, its not 8, its 9.6mpg. I cant be bothered to actually sit and input it all into Excel, but I'd be willing to bet that if we added together the average consumption of all vehicles for sale in the US, and all vehicles for sale in the UK, the result would be 50% worse economy for the yank tanks.
Talk about an apples to oranges. There are more reasons the UK has small cars other than pollution and gas prices. Mostly because all are in the dark ages still, your roads can't be expanded because your buildings were built during horsy days. While on the other hand, we have the room to make big roads, hence can use larger cars. AND besides, iof we are willing to pay the price for the gas milage, what business is it of yours?

"what precisely is wrong with admitting that?" I guess nothing, if that is how you truly feel. At the time, it just sounded like big talk coming from behind a keyboard. If you really feel that strongly about all these issues and you really believe we are as bad as you think we are and if there ever was a "formal conflict" between us and you wanted to sign up, then I guess we'll see ya when you get here.
Unlikely Im afraid - I fall significantly outside of the age criteria :( . But maybe they'd need anyone who was willing to come so theres still hope. Makes you wonder though - would sufficient Americans 'stand by their man' so to speak to actually make it a genuine conflict? Its certainly heartening to read that more yanks are wondering whether or not Bush is doing them any favours

actually, 1 US gallons = 3.7854118 liters, but the US vs UK gallon and the billion thing I was not aware of...hmmm...learn something new everyday. I knew there was a reason I hang around this place:D

Thanks, Brian
When I was a youngster, living in Michigan, we used to vacation in Canada. Dad would tell us the gas prices appeared higher, but they had Imperial Gallons which were more than the US gallon. (I have noticed Canada has gone to liters after my recent trip there). So would the then Candaian Imperial gallon be the same as the UK's gallon?

AND besides, iof we are willing to pay the price for the gas milage, what business is it of yours?
The rest of the world is paying the price of your carbon emissions, not just you!:mad:

Unlikely Im afraid - I fall significantly outside of the age criteria :( . But maybe they'd need anyone who was willing to come so theres still hope. Makes you wonder though - would sufficient Americans 'stand by their man' so to speak to actually make it a genuine conflict? Its certainly heartening to read that more yanks are wondering whether or not Bush is doing them any favours

Personally, I haven't heard any of the issues that you have brought up, to be worth going to war over.

Talk about an apples to oranges. There are more reasons the UK has small cars other than pollution and gas prices.
What, apart from the facetious ones below?
Mostly because all are in the dark ages still, your roads can't be expanded because your buildings were built during horsy days. While on the other hand, we have the room to make big roads, hence can use larger cars.
AND besides, iof we are willing to pay the price for the gas milage, what business is it of yours?
Well because, at least according to the theory, the repurcussions of your profligacy are felt further afield than your wallet. Theres only so much to go round. You're using (a lot) more than your fair share. Unlike European governments who acknowledge this and tax punitively, the US administration seem content to allow its citizens to drink and be damned. I resent that you pay so little, not because I want to pay the prices you do, but because I want you to pay the price I do. If you did, that may force a change of thinking in Detroit

I resent that you pay so little, not because I want to pay the prices you do, but because I want you to pay the price I do. If you did, that may force a change of thinking in Detroit
Oh, the ENVY thing again comes out.
You appear to be one of those people that just can't stand someone "gett'n over" without yelling about it.
HEY, he got two scoops of ice cream, I only got one!
Such a whiner

Personally, I haven't heard any of the issues that you have brought up, to be worth going to war over.
Okay well Im responding in a hurry as Ive something else to do now, so this might not be the best example, but...
Imagine a scenario whereby the UN called the US to account over illegal (as far as they're concerned anyway) detention in Camp X-Ray, or 'extraordinary rendition' (what a weird phrase that is!). Diplomacy would unarguably intervene, but say that the UN demanded the cessation of rendition via its territories. Then imagine that the US refused to acknowledge this and attempted to continue grabbing people off European streets who they felt were a risk. Economic sanctions from both sides - people getting p***ed off. Perhaps with EU flagged vessels blockading ports preventing shipments from leaving bound for the US. How far is it from there before blows are exchanged? And how far are we now from the onset of this argument?

Oh, the ENVY thing again comes out.
You appear to be one of those people that just can't stand someone "gett'n over" without yelling about it.
HEY, he got two scoops of ice cream, I only got one!
Read again. I argued that you should pay appropriately, not that I should pay less
Such a whiner
Sorry, I thought you lot were maintaining a moral high ground about insults? :eek:

Then imagine that the US refused to acknowledge this and attempted to continue grabbing people off European streets who they felt were a risk. Perhaps with EU flagged vessels blockading ports preventing shipments from leaving bound for the US. How far is it from there before blows are exchanged? And how far are we now from the onset of this argument?
You mean like the tube bombers?
What goods are they going to block comeing to the USA from the UK?
Other than thick cut orange marmalade, can't really think of anything we buy from the UK. Even English ale, we have produced here now (bout the only thing I bought from the UK). OK I just bought a Moto Guzzi, but that is Italian. I say blockade um, lets see who hurts the most.

You mean like the tube bombers?
Eh? What are you waffling about?
What goods are they going to block comeing to the USA from the UK? Other than thick cut orange marmalade, can't really think of anything we buy from the UK. Even English ale, we have produced here now (bout the only thing I bought from the UK). OK I just bought a Moto Guzzi, but that is Italian. I say blockade um, lets see who hurts the most.
Blockades traditionally work for exports as well as imports...

Just like Colin and me then :eek: :cool: :D

Of course. :cool: :D

Well because, at least according to the theory, the repurcussions of your profligacy are felt further afield than your wallet. Theres only so much to go round. You're using (a lot) more than your fair share. Unlike European governments who acknowledge this and tax punitively, the US administration seem content to allow its citizens to drink and be damned. I resent that you pay so little, not because I want to pay the prices you do, but because I want you to pay the price I do. If you did, that may force a change of thinking in Detroit

I don't think anyone here is going to argue the fact that oil is a finite resource and something needs to be done to reduce our dependancy on it. Hopefully sooner rather than later. :rolleyes:

Many of the new vehicles are rated to run on either pure gasoline or the gas/ethanol E85 mixture. I think some can even run on pure ethanol. It's not much, but it is a beginning as it will reduce (somewhat) our dependency on oil. The main problem right now is finding places to purchase that type of fuel, at least around here where I live. I just recently read that they are building 2 (or possibly 3) new processing plants in our state for producing the Ethanol blends, but they won't be operational for a year or two.

There are also the electric cars. I think more people would be willing to buy those if they didn't make them look so stupid. :rolleyes: Why can't they just make them look like regular cars, so people can't tell when you're driving down the road that you are definitely driving a goofy-looking electric car? And then the automakers complain that they are having a hard time moving the electric or hybrid cars and they don't seem to "get it" that it is because of the way they look. I was watching the news a day or two ago and saw that a company out in Silicon Valley in California had produced an electric sports car. It looked pretty neat, definitely something I would consider buying if I were in the market for a sports car. The only problem was the $100,000 price tag. :eek: Although, they did mention that they had a 4-door sedan in the works that would carry a smaller price tag and still look sporty-ish. Hopefully that will make the "big boys" in Detroit stand up and take notice. :rolleyes:

Diplomacy would unarguably intervene, but say that the UN demanded the cessation of rendition via its territories.

What via the security council? Hmmm ever heard of the word 'veto'.

1) The US isn't going to support economic sanctions on itself
2) The UK supports the US's stance on terrorism
3) France won't commit to anything
4) Russia is still recovering from the Cold War, so highly doubt that they want to enter another one
5) That leaves China to decide if they want to go it alone.

Then imagine that the US refused to acknowledge this and attempted to continue grabbing people off European streets who they felt were a risk.

These people (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5075618.stm) were also felt to be a risk. European policies seem to be just as aggressive as the US.

And how far are we now from the onset of this argument?

Much further than you seem to think. Israel invaded Lebanon and the UN does nothing. What makes you think the UN is going to stand up against the US over individual terrorist suspects?

I don't think anyone here is going to argue the fact that oil is a finite resource and something needs to be done to reduce our dependancy on it. Hopefully sooner rather than later. :rolleyes:

Many of the new vehicles are rated to run on either pure gasoline or the gas/ethanol E85 mixture. I think some can even run on pure ethanol. It's not much, but it is a beginning as it will reduce (somewhat) our dependency on oil. The main problem right now is finding places to purchase that type of fuel, at least around here where I live. I just recently read that they are building 2 (or possibly 3) new processing plants in our state for producing the Ethanol blends, but they won't be operational for a year or two.

The E85 looks like nothing more than a sop to lentil-eaters in my view. The complete lack of an infrastructure to support it undermines it before it gets underway, and there simply are not sufficient incentives for buyers to stump up the extra in the first place.

There are also the electric cars. I think more people would be willing to buy those if they didn't make them look so stupid. :rolleyes: Why can't they just make them look like regular cars, so people can't tell when you're driving down the road that you are definitely driving a goofy-looking electric car? And then the automakers complain that they are having a hard time moving the electric or hybrid cars and they don't seem to "get it" that it is because of the way they look. I was watching the news a day or two ago and saw that a company out in Silicon Valley in California had produced an electric sports car. It looked pretty neat, definitely something I would consider buying if I were in the market for a sports car. The only problem was the $100,000 price tag. :eek: Although, they did mention that they had a 4-door sedan in the works that would carry a smaller price tag and still look sporty-ish. Hopefully that will make the "big boys" in Detroit stand up and take notice. :rolleyes:

Theres a (valid) argument that electric-powered cars can actually be more harmful to the environment than conventionally-fuelled vehicles, given that the process of generating the electricity they use is itself unfriendly. Theres also the unfortunate side-effect that the owner feels smug in his (locally) green car and increases his mileage, because the cost of 'refuelling' is so much cheaper and less in your face than having to stand there at the fuel station brimming the tank. Thats at least partly offset though by the current - no pun intended - lack of range of electric cars. The storage cells are so heavy as a ratio of power delivered that its a bit of a non-starter - okay, I intended that one :D

This effort of trying to find alternative fuels seems like a smokescreen, given that there would be much more time to find more viable alternatives if we didnt get through what we have at such a rate. Look at it like this - the average fuel consumption of your cars has actually decreased over the past 20 years (I'll give a link when I find it to back that up), simply because its more 'sexy' to beef up the horsepower than it is to increase its efficiency. Meanwhile, the tax situation in Europe has meant manufacturers have had to concentrate on economy because the consumer demands to offset the increasing price of motoring. The law of diminishing returns applies just as much here as anywhere else, so the US has so much more potential to make savings compared to everyone else - pure logic dictates that it must be easier to get from 18mpg to 28mpg than it is to get from 58mpg to 68mpg. Europeans resent that they make these savings, while watching consumers such as yourselves being so wasteful.

2) The UK supports the US's stance on terrorism
Not quite, the UK's puppet on a string PM supports... but I get your drift
These people (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5075618.stm) were also felt to be a risk. European policies seem to be just as aggressive as the US.
Its foul and deplorable, but thankfully the public backlash has ensured that there wont be a repetition anytime soon.
What makes you think the UN is going to stand up against the US over individual terrorist suspects?
Desperation? :D

Not quite, the UK's puppet on a string PM supports... but I get your drift

You like the cowboy suits too much :p

Its foul and deplorable, but thankfully the public backlash has ensured that there wont be a repetition anytime soon.

Don't want to sound argumentative here but this was a repetition. Do you remember the tube shooting?

Not quite, the UK's puppet on a string PM supports... but I get your drift
Funny how when it comes to the bad things the UK is responsible for, it's all the doing of Bliar and the average citizen is blameless. Yet when it comes to the bad things the U.S. is responsible for, the entirey citizenry is to blame.

Funny how when it comes to the bad things the UK is responsible for, it's all the doing of Bliar and the average citizen is blameless. Yet when it comes to the bad things the U.S. is responsible for, the entirey citizenry is to blame.
Not really. Brits supporting Bliar are fewer than they used to be, and joe public is beginning to appreciate that hes not the good world citizen he thought he was. Some Brits (depends on which newspaper you read how many) now feel embarrassed to be from England - rightly so, since we are becoming another state of US. Do you know anyone embarrassed to be American? All about patriotic values, I guess, but I would personally imagine that even if such a yank existed, he would be somewhat scared to express his discontent given the fervent adoration for the flag and all who fly it.

J's version differs wildly from the history I've read, just a short quote from wikipedia



Guess what America is alarmed at the illegals crossing from Mexico.
Wht's that saying " what goes around comes around"

Brian


Not really what your talking about is politics. The fact is the Anglo and Spanish (Latino) seltlers sought indipendence and won it in a war.

That I belive, will show up, even in your "historically accurate" English history books

then I guess we'll see ya when you get here.
Hell we don't want to go there, your streets are too much like the battle grounds in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Is that why you went there ?:confused: :rolleyes:

I say blockade um, lets see who hurts the most.
Remind us again why Bush had to withdraw his "steel embargo"?:rolleyes: :cool:

Funny how when it comes to the bad things the UK is responsible for, it's all the doing of Bliar and the average citizen is blameless. Yet when it comes to the bad things the U.S. is responsible for, the entirey citizenry is to blame.

As has been pointed out on other threads the way Bliar and Bush are elected are totally different. The whole nation gets a say in who is president, a handful of voters in the safest of Labour seats get to vote for or against Bliar.

That said i believe we all vote for the lesser of the evils in our eyes and as it effects us when we cast our vote for a politician.

Brian

Do you know anyone embarrassed to be American?
Yep (http://www.sorryeverybody.com).

Perhaps if you took some time to ask Americans about how they think instead of telling them how they think, you might learn a thing or two.

As has been pointed out on other threads the way Bliar and Bush are elected are totally different. The whole nation gets a say in who is president, a handful of voters in the safest of Labour seats get to vote for or against Bliar.
This isn't as different as you think. Yes, the entire nation gets to vote for President but because of the elctoral college only a certain subset of votes actually matter. The so-called swing states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state)are the ones who elect the President. Those of us in states that traditionally vote one way or the other don't really make a difference (as long as we maintain the status quo. One could conceivably organize an uprising against the dominant political party but it's not likely and no one is trying). Furthermore, if you vote for a candidate other than the one who wins your state's electoral votes, then your vote becomes irrelevant. For example, my home state of Illinois has consistently voted for the Democratic candidate for two or three decades now. In the 2004 election, %55 of the population voted for Kerry and therefore all the electoral votes for Illinois went to Kerry. The flip side of that is that the 2,346,000 people who voted for George Bush basically had their votes nullified. Since the popular vote on the national level is irrelevant, those 2 million people basically had no impact - and therefore no say - whatsoever on the outcome of the election.

Do you know anyone embarrassed to be American?
Yes the American foreign office (or whatever they call it :rolleyes: )
Americans now have to say they're Canadians when going abroad (that's "overseas" in American).
Bloody disgraceful act on Canada if you ask me:mad: :rolleyes:

Perhaps if you took some time to ask Americans about how they think instead of telling them how they think, you might learn a thing or two.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

:p

This isn't as different as you think. Yes, the entire nation gets to vote for President but because of the elctoral college only a certain subset of votes actually matter. The so-called swing states are the ones who elect the President. Those of us in states that traditionally vote one way or the other don't really make a difference. Furthermore, if you vote for a candidate other than the one who wins your state's electoral votes, then your vote becomes irrelevant. For example, my home state of Illinois has consistently voted for the Democratic candidate for two or three decades now. In the 2004 election, %55 of the population voted for Kerry and therefore all the electoral votes for Illinois went to Kerry. The flip side of that is that the 2,346,000 people who voted for George Bush basically had their votes nullified. Since the popular vote on the national level is irrelevant, those 2 million people basically had no impact - and therefore no say - whatsoever on the outcome of the election.

We basically vote for someone who has pledged to vote for a presidential candidate...

Yep (http://www.sorryeverybody.com).
No, I asked if you knew anyone - unless of course you personally know the owner of that site?
Perhaps if you took some time to ask Americans about how they think instead of telling them how they think, you might learn a thing or two.
Okay, then, lets play your game. Im asking you if you're ashamed to be an American

Okay, then, lets play your game. Im asking you if you're ashamed to be an American

At times, yes but overall - no. :) :) :)

We basically vote for someone who has pledged to vote for a presidential candidate...
Who technically is supposed to vote for whoever they think is best regardless of what the idiot voters say, but never does because of the horrible abuse of power it would be...even though that's what the Constitution says they're supposed to do. :rolleyes:

At times, yes but overall - no. :) :) :)
Mmmmm, we've got our work cut out with this one :mad: :p

Who technically is supposed to vote for whoever they think is best regardless of what the idiot voters say, but never does because of the horrible abuse of power it would be...even though that's what the Constitution says they're supposed to do. :rolleyes:

Hum... How could you Google that to see if anyone's ever done that; voted for some other than they originally supported..?

(I'm sure if it ever happened we were supposed to learn about it in school but that was many years ago...:eek: )

At times, yes but overall - no. :) :) :)
Then how can you complain about my sweeping generalisations about yanks and their support of a corrupt government if they actually apply to you?

Mmmmm, we've got our work cut out with this one :mad: :p

Focus on the gap :D

Then how can you complain about my sweeping generalisations about yanks and their support of a corrupt government if they actually apply to you?

I'm not complaining... :confused: I don't care what a jack-ass like you says about me or my country. Lose the attitude and maybe someone will listen... But at this point in time, I kind of doubt it... :p :p :p

No, I asked if you knew anyone - unless of course you personally know the owner of that site?
The owner? No. I do personally know people who posted their pictures, though.

Okay, then, lets play your game. Im asking you if you're ashamed to be an American
I'll play along. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm ashamed to be American. After all, I didn't do anything to be American, I was just born here. Why should I feel personally ashamed for the actions of people whom I cannot control? I am, however, disgusted by the behavior of many of my countrymen, most notably the current administration and those who voted for him for no real reason. (Note my usage of the phrase "real reason". Those who have legitimate beefs with the Democratic party have my blessing to vote for Bush, even though I disagree.)

As far as shame goes, the only thing I personally feel a sense of shame about is my own failure to be less wasteful.

Hum... How could you Google that to see if anyone's ever done that; voted for some other than they originally supported..?
Ask and you shal receive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Faithless_electors).

... a jack-ass like you ...
Lol you people are just too much fun. Whine on and on about this ignorant Brit throwing insults, and in the process you insult him. Can anyone spell hypocrite? :D :D

I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm ashamed to be American.
Well you bloody well should be :D
After all, I didn't do anything to be American, I was just born here. Why should I feel personally ashamed for the actions of people whom I cannot control?
Well the same could be said of us - we didnt choose to be born British but it hasnt stopped us being ashamed of it
I am, however, disgusted by the behavior of many of my countrymen...
You mean in foreign policy, the kids who burn rubber outside your house at night, the guy up the road running a brothel, or what?
As far as shame goes, the only thing I personally feel a sense of shame about is my own failure to be less wasteful.
Ah, you drive a Suburban too then? :o

Lol you people are just too much fun. Whine on and on about this ignorant Brit throwing insults, and in the process you insult him. Can anyone spell hypocrite? :D :D
Yes. M-I-R-R-O-R.

Well the same could be said of us - we didnt choose to be born British but it hasnt stopped us being ashamed of it
Well, frankly I think such an additude is stupid. The people and their country are closely tied, but they are not one and the same.

You mean in foreign policy, the kids who burn rubber outside your house at night, the guy up the road running a brothel, or what?
Does it matter? I mean it in a lot of different ways. I don't see how naming specifics beyond what I already did is relevant.

Ah, you drive a Suburban too then? :o
No, actually I don't own a vehicle.

Yes. M-I-R-R-O-R.
Heh, nice try but no cigar. Ive not complained about being insulted - the yanks have. Cant have it both ways old son, you either insult and be damned, or you stay out and claim the high ground.
Well, frankly I think such an additude is stupid. The people and their country are closely tied, but they are not one and the same.
Presuming you meant attitude, I beg to differ. When you see on the tube that yet another Afghan family has been wiped out by a US plane, you should feel ashamed that it was done 'in your name'.
Does it matter? I mean it in a lot of different ways. I don't see how naming specifics beyond what I already did is relevant.
Please yourself, I was simply enquiring what you meant.
No, actually I don't own a vehicle.
That was irony, sorry for not putting it in [irony] tags for your benefit

When you see on the tube that yet another Afghan family has been wiped out by a US plane, you should feel ashamed that it was done 'in your name'.


Don't be so daft, they've bombed their way around the world since the end of WW11:rolleyes:
even more so when the Republicans are in charge:rolleyes:

Heh, nice try but no cigar. Ive not complained about being insulted - the yanks have. Cant have it both ways old son, you either insult and be damned, or you stay out and claim the high ground.

I believe I was the one who "complained" on the behalf of other members. I also said I thought you might be a crackpot, but after that post we ended up having a reasonable discussion. :D

That's not to say I approve of what Ken said either. (Tsk tsk Ken, just because Selena's not here doesn't mean you or Col or Rich can act up. ;) )

I don't have any problem with the discussion or the debate, but I tend to get fed up with the name-calling which is usually when I just ignore a thread. Sometimes, however, I'm just "in a mood" and I speak up. :D

That's not to say I approve of what Ken said either. (Tsk tsk Ken, just because Selena's not here doesn't mean you or Col or Rich can act up. ;) )

I should just like to point out that both Colin and I have, and always do, behave as perfect gentlemen :cool:

I should just like to point out that both Colin and I have, and always do, behave as perfect gentlemen :cool:

Of course. :rolleyes: :D Ah, well. I'm not the "official" peacekeeper here anyway. Selena won't be gone forever and you'll have to face her wrath when she returns. IF you misbehave, that is. ;)

... but after that post we ended up having a reasonable discussion.
Shhhhhh! Have you any idea how hard it was to build this reputation?!

Shhhhhh! Have you any idea how hard it was to build this reputation?!

Probably not too difficult. ;)

Lol you people are just too much fun.

It's actually kind of sad to know people like you shed a bad light on your country. Even some of them have ask you to lighten up,,,


Whine on and on about this ignorant Brit throwing insults, and in the process you insult him.

'ignorant Brit' Closest thing you've said to the truth yet... In my humble opinion :D


Can anyone spell hypocrite? :D :D

Yes - 'N' 'O' 'M' 'O' 'R' 'E' 'H' 'H' 'Y' 'P' :p :p :p

That's not to say I approve of what Ken said either. (Tsk tsk Ken, just because Selena's not here doesn't mean you or Col or Rich can act up. ;) )


I just thought I take it down to his level and see if he'd get the point, sorry :o

Are you going to gig him on name calling?

Cant have it both ways old son, you either insult and be damned, or you stay out and claim the high ground.
Sure we can. Here's how this works:

1.) You insult people.
2.) We take umbrage to being insulted and voice a complaint.
3.) You offer no apologies and continue to insult.
4.) You now become fair game. You are not a respectful person, therefore we have no incentive to treat you with respect. You see, the root issue is not about insults it's about being respectful.

Presuming you meant attitude
Yes, one of my more common typo habits. I commend your extraordinary powers of comprehension despite minor spelling errors.

I beg to differ. When you see on the tube that yet another Afghan family has been wiped out by a US plane, you should feel ashamed that it was done 'in your name'.
Perhaps you might explain the rationale behind your position instead of restating it with emotional appeal?

That was irony, sorry for not putting it in [irony] tags for your benefit
Actually, it wasn't irony. You were making a direct connection between SUVs and wastefulness and making a facetious suggestion that because I admit to being wasteful I probably drive an SUV. This is not an outrageous suggestion and could have easily been true. Considering that the definition of irony is communicating an intended meaning which is opposite of the literal meaning, your statement does not even come close to anything that could be considered irony. It was playful or facetious at best, snide at wost.

Yes - 'N' 'O' 'M' 'O' 'R' 'E' 'H' 'H' 'Y' 'P' :p :p :p

You've misspelt it. ;) :D

So I guess you're really NOT referring to nomorehype. :p

It's actually kind of sad to know people like you shed a bad light on your country.
Like 'Merkin soldiers in Iraq?
'ignorant Brit' Closest thing you've said to the truth yet... In my humble opinion :D
Opinions are like a$$holes - everyone has one. Or in your case, are one :D
Okay, your turn again! If you aint okay with being insulted, dont insult others.
Yes - 'N' 'O' 'M' 'O' 'R' 'E' 'H' 'H' 'Y' 'P' :p :p :p
typical yank illiteracy...

You've misspelt it. ;) :D

So I guess you're really NOT referring to nomorehype. :p

Guess you've got me on a technical...:(

Can I withdraw my apology then :D

If you aint okay with being insulted, dont insult others.

Ok. :)

Are you going to play by the same rules?:confused:

I just thought I take it down to his level and see if he'd get the point, sorry :o

Are you going to gig him on name calling?

I gigged him in this (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=508830&postcount=797) post about being condescending and slinging insults/names. So I had to bring you to task as well in all fairness. ;)

I'm not a very good peacekeeper though, so I guess if you want to duke it out then go ahead. :D

I gigged him in this (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=508830&postcount=797) post about being condescending and slinging insults/names. So I had to bring you to task as well in all fairness. ;)

I'm not a very good peacekeeper though, so I guess if you want to duke it out then go ahead. :D

Not much to his stuff as I see it. Not worth the effort. :) I'll try to behave :o

Sure we can. Here's how this works:

1.) You insult people.
2.) We take umbrage to being insulted and voice a complaint.
3.) You offer no apologies and continue to insult.
4.) You now become fair game.
Hmm, okay. More 'rules' dreamed up on the spot. Well okay, lets see how much fun the game is:

I don't care what a jack-ass like you says
Ouch! Foul! I invoke clause 2 of the Kraj rules on insults!
[QUOTE=KenHigg]ignorant Brit
Eh? Where's my apology?
Pssst, Kraj. How long does he get before you invoke clause 4? C'mon, tell me, please!
Perhaps you might explain the rationale behind your position instead of restating it with emotional appeal?
Kraj, if you genuinely dont understand why you should feel guilty at deaths caused by American servicemen, then theres no point in me explaining it to you.
Actually, it wasn't irony. You were making a direct connection between SUVs and wastefulness and making a facetious suggestion that because I admit to being wasteful I probably drive an SUV. This is not an outrageous suggestion and could have easily been true...
So whats the problem then?

Ok. :)

Are you going to play by the same rules?:confused:
I already do. I dont have a problem being insulted. I only have a problem with people who complain about being insulted while insulting those they're complaining about. Given the thick skin, that leaves me licence to insult. Is this too complicated for you?

Nah, I think I get it. Thanks. :):):)

Nah, I think I get it. Thanks. :):):)
Excellent. With a bit of luck we can move on now. Okay, whats your stance on the SUV issue we were discussing a couple of pages back? Or pick another subject, Im game.

Eh? Where's my apology?
Pssst, Kraj. How long does he get before you invoke clause 4? C'mon, tell me, please!
Sweetheart, your very first post on these forums was an insult and you've continued in the same vein ever since. Unless you can muster up the balls to apologize for your own actions, you don't deserve the slightest bit of respect, let alone an apology. The fact that you cry about receiving the same treatment you've been dishing out since the very beggining is laughably pathetic.

Kraj, if you genuinely dont understand why you should feel guilty at deaths caused by American servicemen, then theres no point in me explaining it to you.
"Well if you don't know I'm not going to tell you", huh? That's the classic response of the person who doesn't have the faintest clue about what they're saying.

So whats the problem then?
Quite simply, that you're a pompus ass and I enjoyed pointing it out to you. If you're going to be ignorant and misuse terms, you might want to make fun of other people for being wrong since it basically means you're making fun of yourself.

But you've grown tiresome. I doubt I'll bother with you anymore. Unlike most of the other folks around here I get into little friendly spats with, you're boring.

Presuming you meant attitude,

Hey Nomo, seems like I remember you getting your feathers all ruffled, a couple of weeks ago, when I pointed out that you spelled something wrong. Swelled up like some old toad and gave some speech about Americans compared to English and education. Now you turn around and do the same?
Do as I say, not as I do?

After all, I didn't do anything to be American, I was just born here. Why should I feel personally ashamed for the actions of people whom I cannot control?


Well the same could be said of us - we didnt choose to be born British but it hasnt stopped us being ashamed of it

One of the first things I agree with you on. If I was born British, I would be ashamed also.:D

when I pointed out that you spelled something wrong. Swelled up like some old toad and gave some speech about Americans compared to English and education. Now you turn around and do the same?
Do as I say, not as I do?
That should be "spelt" by the way

I should just like to point out that both Colin and I have, and always do, behave as perfect gentlemen :cool:

and I repeat what I said yesterday

Can I just say I distance myself from his comments - I never call people names and wouldn't in any way say Greg has a "tiny" mind. I agree with Cindy's comments about Greg.

I am shaking my head - stirring things up or having a little pop at Dan / Ken / Matt et al, is one thing, but being personally insulting isn't my (nor Rich's) style.

Col

Sweetheart, your very first post on these forums was an insult and you've continued in the same vein ever since. Unless you can muster up the balls to apologize for your own actions, you don't deserve the slightest bit of respect, let alone an apology. The fact that you cry about receiving the same treatment you've been dishing out since the very beggining is laughably pathetic.
Jesus Christ, you do need it spelled out dont you! I was pointing out the hypocrisy of you criticising my insults, but happily ignoring those of your compatriots (and of course your own). Im quite happy to take any flak you yanks dish out - Ive got broad shoulders and 'if you cant take the heat...' etc. But I do have to admit being slightly peeved that, by your rules of engagement as detailed in the post I replied to, Im "fair game" while others performing the same actions are apparently exempt. Feel free to twist and squirm some more, but the thread shows a two-way engagement :)

"Well if you don't know I'm not going to tell you", huh? That's the classic response of the person who doesn't have the faintest clue about what they're saying.
To be honest, I expected that response. I could go on now and explain the cultural differences between US and UK, and why that might contribute to being ashamed of ones country, etc. But I cant really see the point, since by your own admission you're more interested in baiting than debating.

Jesus Christ, you do need it spelled out dont you! I was pointing out the hypocrisy of you criticising my insults, but happily ignoring those of your compatriots (and of course your own). Im quite happy to take any flak you yanks dish out - Ive got broad shoulders and 'if you cant take the heat...' etc. But I do have to admit being slightly peeved that, by your rules of engagement as detailed in the post I replied to, Im "fair game" while others performing the same actions are apparently exempt. Feel free to twist and squirm some more, but the thread shows a two-way engagement :)

Your getting your facts a little messed up, Nomo. It was me that you called the hypocrite, not Kraj.

Don't worry Colin. If anyone is comparing you to nomorehype, it's only to point out precisely why you're so much better than he is. :)

That should be "spelt" by the way

Only if you use archaic UK English. :cool: ;)

Only if you use archaic UK English. :cool: ;)
It's the Queen's (god bless her) English and we hold title to it :cool: :p

It's the Queen's (god bless her) English and we hold title to it :cool: :p
Wow. That gives a whole new meaning to the term "dead langauge". ;) :D :p

Only if you use archaic UK English. :cool: ;)

I was educated in the UK and was taught that the two were interchangeable.

The words 'Spelled' and 'Spelt', that is, not UK and US English (there are limits to how far I'm willing to lower my standards :D ).

Your getting your facts a little messed up, Nomo. It was me that you called the hypocrite, not Kraj.
You do an awful lot of name calling, for a Christian, don't you? :rolleyes:

I was educated in the UK and was taught that the two were interchangeable.
Your school wasn't close to one of the US airbases was it? :D
This article was actually written by an educated American, I'm impressed, though I doubt many Yanks have ever read it

http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/british.html

Your school wasn't close to one of the US airbases was it? :D
This article was actually written by an educated American, I'm impressed, though I doubt many Yanks have ever read it

http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/british.html

The closest base was just under an hour's drive, funnily enough, but I never met anyone from it, so can honestly say they didn't corrupt my grammar ;) .

Interesting article, that. Not sure I agree with all of it, though ('gotten', for example, was very commonly used, when I was growing up).

I noticed the author has the US habit of using England and Britain interchangeably (nothing new there - Laziness? Ignorance? Apathy?). Perhaps there is a regional difference that extends beyond simply slang and accents, so that some expressions that are considered 'American' are common in some places in Blighty and not in others.

Your school wasn't close to one of the US airbases was it? :D
This article was actually written by an educated American, I'm impressed, though I doubt many Yanks have ever read it

http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/british.html
There's some great quotes in there Rich:D

But for some reason, many Americans are oblivious to the fact that such differences exist, and when they stumble across something written according to the British system of usage, their immediate reaction is that the writer has screwed up and needs to be corrected.
And that's not even the worst of it. There is an unfortunate tendency among Americans to adopt a hectoring tone when they take it upon themselves to correct other people's grammar or usage. I have heard that tone blamed on American chauvinism

Unfortunately, English grammar and usage are very badly taught in the U.S., even at the college level

so many businesses in the U.S. try to make themselves seem more sophisticated by pretentiously using such Britishisms in their names.

I think it confirms our thoughts about American education:rolleyes:

Col

You do an awful lot of name calling, for a Christian, don't you? :rolleyes:

Hey Rich,

Why don't you get off me. Matt asked me, a few weeks back, "to give it a rest", so have. Now go back and read the post again. I didn't call him a hypocrite, Nomo called me one.

My favorite quotes from it:

People trained according to British usage seldom try to correct Americans for following American rules of usage. If the differences between the two systems even come up at all, they are likely to refer to such differences in terms of a question--something along the lines of, "Is that how it is done in America?" But usually the issue doesn't even arise, because they read books, papers, and magazines printed in the United States, and they are well aware of the differences.
Someone should direct him to these forums. :rolleyes:

I would suggest to my fellow Americans that if we feel the need to correct someone else's writing, we should first be quite certain that we know what we are talking about; and second, we should make our suggestions politely and respectfully. Even if it is the case that we are addressing a genuine error rather than merely a difference between American and British usage, there is no excuse for bullying or rudeness.
Hear that kids? Politely and respecfully.

My favorite quotes from it:

Someone should direct him to these forums. :rolleyes:

.

Yes, I saw that one too.

One can only assume that he's referring to the difference between small, understandable, insignificant errors - such as the British make and which the Americans point out, in a rather petty, mean-spirited and pedantic manner - rather than huge, glaring, clearly careless mistakes - such as Americans make and which it is every British person's duty to helpfully comment on, in an attempt to educate :D

Someone should direct him to these forums. :rolleyes:
well someone has to pick up the baton and try to teach you the Queens (God bless her) English


Hear that kids? Politely and respecfully.
Yes, that was directed at Americans please note:rolleyes: :p ;) :D

Col

well someone has to pick up the baton and try to teach you the Queens (God bless her) English



Yes, that was directed at Americans please note:rolleyes: :p ;) :D

Col

Col, just a curious question and it really is a curious question, not one with a agenda. I noticed that you and Rich both always put "God bless her" after everytime you say "the Queen", yet you don't believe there is a deity. Why is that? Is it just something that gets said, in England, anytime something is said about the Queen?

Yes, I saw that one too.

One can only assume that he's referring to the difference between small, understandable, insignificant errors - such as the British make and which the Americans point out, in a rather petty, mean-spirited and pedantic manner - rather than huge, glaring, clearly careless mistakes - such as Americans make and which it is every British person's duty to helpfully comment on, in an attempt to educate :D

Matt, youre as free as anyone else to disagree with my methods and/or points, but FWIW that was a brilliant post! But you owe me a new keyboard...

Col, just a curious question and it really is a curious question, not one with a agenda. I noticed that you and Rich both always put "God bless her" after everytime you say "the Queen", yet you don't believe there is a deity. Why is that? Is it just something that gets said, in England, anytime something is said about the Queen?

I grew up hearing "I was talking to person's name (God Bless Her/Him) ..." used as a jokey expression, to mock the old tradition of saying it about royalty. I never heard anyone say it seriously. It was also regularly used to mean 'don't worry yourself', in the sense of

'Do you want me to get you anything from the shop'
'No, God bless you, I'm okay'

Out of the force of habit, I always use the shortened version 'Bless you' when someone sneezes (Black Death and all that), but I'm definitely an atheist.

I think it's the same way that - good or bad - Christmas now has little to do with religion for many people, it's just what the day's called. I suppose an analogy would be that I'm quite happy to call the day between Wednesday and Friday by it's common name, but I don't believe in the Norse gods, either.

... Queens (God bless her) English
Dead right. And correctly recognising the deity by capitalising the first letter - tut for Rich for getting it wrong yesterday :D :D :D

Col, just a curious question and it really is a curious question, not one with a agenda. I noticed that you and Rich both always put "God bless her" after everytime you say "the Queen", yet you don't believe there is a deity. Why is that? Is it just something that gets said, in England, anytime something is said about the Queen?
As Matt says, its tradition, a sort of jokey thing.
Also as Matt says, religion has been dragged into the pagan celebrations on 25th December in an effort to steal the show by claiming it as "their" day. . . . .bloody cheek:rolleyes:

Col

Dead right. And correctly recognising the deity by capitalising the first letter
that was a keyboard error

Col

As Matt says, its tradition, a sort of jokey thing.
Also as Matt says, religion has been dragged into the pagan celebrations on 25th December in an effort to steal the show by claiming it as "their" day. . . . .bloody cheek:rolleyes:

Col

Col, don't know if you watched it, but I always remember that quote from Bottom.

The main characters find an abandoned basket with a baby in it on their doorstep Their three guests have brought gfts of a Frankenstein mask, some Terry's 'All Gold' and a bottle of aftershave called 'Grrrr'. Putting those with the fact that one character is a virgin, they assume it's the second coming. One of them comes out with:

"I'm not letting the arrival of the son of God spoil my Christmas"

I grew up hearing "I was talking to person's name (God Bless Her/Him) ..." used as a jokey expression, to mock the old tradition of saying it about royalty. I never heard anyone say it seriously. It was also regularly used to mean 'don't worry yourself', in the sense of

'Do you want me to get you anything from the shop'
'No, God bless you, I'm okay'

Out of the force of habit, I always use the shortened version 'Bless you' when someone sneezes (Black Death and all that), but I'm definitely an atheist.

I think it's the same way that - good or bad - Christmas now has little to do with religion for many people, it's just what the day's called. I suppose an analogy would be that I'm quite happy to call the day between Wednesday and Friday by it's common name, but I don't believe in the Norse gods, either.

Thanks for taking the time to answer Matt and Col. Another question arises off of your answer Matt. Is atheism fairly common in UK? Is it more common in England than any of the other countries?

Thanks for taking the time to answer Matt and Col. Another question arises off of your answer Matt. Is atheism fairly common in UK? Is it more common in England than any of the other countries?

Firstly, I'm not English, I'm Welsh. Both part of the UK, but decidedly different attitudes to certain things, which may or may not be relevant here. The people in the Welsh valleys have a tradition of being very regular church-goers, but I don't know if that still applies to the more recent generations.

I know (knew? It's been three years this weekend since I left the UK) plenty of people who go to church, but I didn't know anyone under 40 who did. Whether that's representative of a national trend, I couldn't say. Plus, maybe it's just a case of 'birds of a feather' and I didn't know people who went because I didn't go. After all, I knew a lot of people who were into nightclubbing, but if I hadn't been one I probably would have known a lot fewer.

There's also the fact that someone may well believe in God, just not go to church. Impossible to tell how many people I knew who fell into that category.

A week from this Thursday, I'm getting married :D , here in Canada. Our ceremony is deliberately non-religious as neither myself nor my fiancee are into it. A few of her friends are, however, so I've been warned to be on my best behaviour if anyone asks why we don't have any of that 'In the sight of God' stuff (I tend to get a bit wound up when anyone expects me to fall into line on that sort of thing and some - not all - of them get a bit insistent). 'Young' people going to church seems to be more prominent here in Ontario than it was back home.

As far as other countries are concerned, I honestly don't know. Some - Italy, Spain, Ireland - appear to have large church-going populations (based on what I've read and observed while travelling), but I've never seen any official statistics.

and I didn't know people who went because I didn't go.
Heh. Read that line back again - have you ever read the book "Eats shoots and leaves"?

Heh. Read that line back again - have you ever read the book "Eats shoots and leaves"?

I'll bite, what's the problem with it? :confused:

Heh. Read that line back again - have you ever read the book "Eats shoots and leaves"?
For the benefit of any that haven't:
A panda goes into a restaurant and orders dinner. After completing his meal, he takes a gun from his pocket, fires it in the air, and makes for the door. The waiter stops him and says "What the hell did you do that for?" Panda looks at him and says "You know what I am, dont you? Look it up in the dictionary, fool. Panda: Eats shoots and leaves"
Yeah, I know, it isnt that funny. But in the context of the "I dont know people who didnt go because I didnt go" I thought if fit. :D

I'll bite, what's the problem with it? :confused:
Difficult to explain without the speech inflection, but I'll have a go...
"I didnt go to church, so I have no idea who did go" -v-
"Some people went to the church, because they knew I didnt go"

For the benefit of any that haven't:
A panda goes into a restaurant and orders dinner. After completing his meal, he takes a gun from his pocket, fires it in the air, and makes for the door. The waiter stops him and says "What the hell did you do that for?" Panda looks at him and says "You know what I am, dont you? Look it up in the dictionary, fool. Panda: Eats shoots and leaves"
Yeah, I know, it isnt that funny. But in the context of the "I dont know people who didnt go because I didnt go" I thought if fit. :D

Oooookay, then..... moving swiftly on.....:D

I have read it, but I didn't make the connection. Have you read 'Eats shites and leaves'? Basically points out a lot of the inconsistencies of the English language in a humorous way. The one that stuck in my mind was about the whole 'not ending a sentence with a preposition' thing that I was taught was a rule. Apparently it was started by someone - a bishop, I think - who didn't like the practise. It was then adopted by more and more people and is now commonly believed to be a grammatical rule, when it actually isnt.

Firstly, I'm not English, I'm Welsh. Both part of the UK, but decidedly different attitudes to certain things, which may or may not be relevant here. The people in the Welsh valleys have a tradition of being very regular church-goers, but I don't know if that still applies to the more recent generations.

I know (knew? It's been three years this weekend since I left the UK) plenty of people who go to church, but I didn't know anyone under 40 who did. Whether that's representative of a national trend, I couldn't say. Plus, maybe it's just a case of 'birds of a feather' and I didn't know people who went because I didn't go. After all, I knew a lot of people who were into nightclubbing, but if I hadn't been one I probably would have known a lot fewer.

There's also the fact that someone may well believe in God, just not go to church. Impossible to tell how many people I knew who fell into that category.

A week from this Thursday, I'm getting married :D , here in Canada. Our ceremony is deliberately non-religious as neither myself nor my fiancee are into it. A few of her friends are, however, so I've been warned to be on my best behaviour if anyone asks why we don't have any of that 'In the sight of God' stuff (I tend to get a bit wound up when anyone expects me to fall into line on that sort of thing and some - not all - of them get a bit insistent). 'Young' people going to church seems to be more prominent here in Ontario than it was back home.

As far as other countries are concerned, I honestly don't know. Some - Italy, Spain, Ireland - appear to have large church-going populations (based on what I've read and observed while travelling), but I've never seen any official statistics.

Once again, thanks for taking time to answer. First of all, congrads on getting married. I've just been curious to ask but really didn't know how to go about it without it stirring up a big dust cloud and it being off topic in no time. I've read quite abit on church history (mostly British authors:) ) and have been curious to how Britian feels about it today. It seems the majority of folks that I have met, from Britian, either believe little about a God or do not believe in one at all. This seems some what ironic to me cause Britian, especially England, sent more missionaries out, than any country in history, at one point in time.

Once again, thanks for taking time to answer. First of all, congrads on getting married. I've just been curious to ask but really didn't know how to go about it without it stirring up a big dust cloud and it being off topic in no time. I've read quite abit on church history (mostly British authors:) ) and have been curious to how Britian feels about it today. It seems the majority of folks that I have met, from Britian, either believe little about a God or do not believe in one at all. This seems some what ironic to me cause Britian, especially England, sent more missionaries out, than any country in history, at one point in time.

I know it's impossible to be sure, since things are very different to how they were, but it wouldn't surprise me if the US went the same way, over the next century or two. Please note that this has just occurred to me, so i'm sure there are glaring gaps in it, as a theory, but bear with me ;) - Maybe it's a stage of development?

That's not to say the we are more highly developed than you are (since that goes without saying :D ), just that the society is a lot older and is 'further along the track', if you like.

If you look back at the Romans, they were by far the biggest force in the Western world. They went through a phase where Christianity was passionately followed, then they died out.

The Dutch had a big missionary phase, while they were hugely into import/export, now they aren't a force to contend with.

We (the British) went off to fight for God during the crusades, then sent out our missionaries around the same time our navy pretty much ruled the Western world. Now - while we've hardly died out as a nation - we have much less influence that we did.

The Spanish in the Americas went much the same way.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. Perhaps the US is next?

Get big, push 'your' method of worship onto other countries, get weaker, watch as someone else does the same. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Not intended as an insult, just an observation.

That's not to say the we are more highly developed than you are (since that goes without saying :D ), just that the society is a lot older and is 'further along the track', if you like. .

That's what we keep hearing out of you folks. Kind of falls in the category of "I wish I could buy you for what you were worth and sell you for what you thought you were worth...and then retire.":D

If you look back at the Romans, they were by far the biggest force in the Western world. They went through a phase where Christianity was passionately followed, then they died out.

I really don't think Christianity was followed by the Romans. They worshipped many gods and put Christians to death by the thousands.


We (the British) went off to fight for God during the crusades, then sent out our missionaries around the same time our navy pretty much ruled the Western world. Now - while we've hardly died out as a nation - we have much less influence that we did.

I think, more specifically, your crusades consisted of going off to kill Jews and then later involved killing protestants. Missionaries being sent out were mainly catholic (Angelican), however at a certain point, the reformers were fleeing from Britian, to save their lives, and settling in other countries, which I guess turned out to be a form of being missionaries.

The Spanish in the Americas went much the same way.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. Perhaps the US is next?

Get big, push 'your' method of worship onto other countries, get weaker, watch as someone else does the same. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Not intended as an insult, just an observation.

No insult taken. I can certainly see the pattern that your pointing to and of course I would have a little different explaination off of that. I do not disagree in any way that many wars and many people have died in the name of someone's God, but I always factor in that people are human and they make God out to be what they want Him to be but that may not be the God that really is. (no matter what God someone professes to believe in), so folks could kill and start wars, in His Name, but that may not be a representation of this God at all. Hope that makes sense. I'm really not trying to push a point. You said something about that a few post back about getting wound up when someone does that. I just think it's interesting conversation as long as the parties involved stay on course and not throw digs in. I, personally, have only met a couple people to profess to not believe in God, so it's interesting to me to find out how people get to the point of believing what they believe.:)

I think, more specifically, your crusades consisted of going off to kill Jews[

To start with, we went to kill Muslims (the Jews had been getting their own trouble from Caliph Hakim, as had the Christians). We did end up killing a lot of Jews, but it wasn't the primary aim.


I really don't think Christianity was followed by the Romans. They worshipped many gods and put Christians to death by the thousands.


Towards the end of the empire, NOT being a christian was enough to get you killed.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch23.htm

See the section headed 'Christian Success and Martyrdom'.


"I wish I could buy you for what you were worth and sell you for what you thought you were worth...and then retire."


Don't see how, as you'd be breaking even? ;)

Don't see how, as you'd be breaking even? ;)

but then again, you could have just made my point. Notice key words, "what you THOUGHT you were worth.":) :D

but then again, you could have just made my point. Notice key words, "what you THOUGHT you were worth.":) :D

*sigh* Yes, and as we keep telling you, if we think it, then it's right.
Please pay attention. :D

To start with, we went to kill Muslims (the Jews had been getting their own trouble from Caliph Hakim, as had the Christians). We did end up killing a lot of Jews, but it wasn't the primary aim.

Thanks for the link, I have to check out when I have more time.

So the first intensions was to go on the crusades to kill Muslims? Did the crusaders ever attack Jerusalem, on one of their crusades? Then we have the reformation later on down the line. Right?

*sigh* Yes, and as we keep telling you, if we think it, then it's right.
Please pay attention. :D

I can't pay attention! I'm American, remember:o I only comprehend whatever my brainwashed mind lets me.:D

I can't pay attention! I'm American, remember:o I only comprehend whatever my brainwashed mind lets me.:D
At last! the message is getting through :eek:

I can't pay attention! I'm American, remember:o I only comprehend whatever my brainwashed mind lets me.:D
There's none so blind...