BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:23 PM

From your postings here I would say that the reason you've never seen a gay homosexual, as you so quaintly put it, is that they always see you coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:19 PM

Lumbricus terrestris? Allolobophora longa? Or have you been scratching your bum again and come up with a pesky nematode?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:14 PM

I have never yet encountered a gay homosexual, most appear to be rather neurotic.....IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:09 PM

What a worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:08 PM

By the way, talking about bad choices of words, Nigel:

"Or was that more sarcasm rather than a bad choice of words?"

Which one would you leave out given another shot at it, Nigel - more or rather? 😉

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:02 PM

It was a perfectly good choice of words. The construction is informal but grammatically correct. OK, I wouldn't include that kind of thing in my PhD thesis. I wouldn't be including "OK" either. And I wouldn't be including "I wouldn't be including." And I probably wouldn't be starting a sentence with "And," though there's nothing wrong with that. And I wouldn't be using "wouldn't" or "there's," preferring the full written-out forms. Thing is, context is everything, the point being to communicate ideas in the most appropriate way for the circumstances. I don't think about rules and I think there's more to clarity of expression than abiding by strict and narrow definitions of words. Imagine the soullessness of a performance of a Beethoven symphony in which the players all regarded the score as a mere collection of thousands of musical notes which had to be literally and mindlessly rendered. I'd rather not.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 10:30 AM

And, believe it or not, "irregardless" is a real word. Just not one I'd be wanting to use.

You could have a good time in front of your class explaining that there is a large difference between "I'd be wanting to use" or "I would wish/want to use". Or was that more sarcasm rather than a bad choice of words?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 10:22 AM

Keith, you mistake me.

i don't dispute your facts.
i dispute your interpretation and the way you emphasise certain facts.

passing a bill through parliament proves nothing. history will no doubt prove that the poor prisoner held on remand for months had the same recourse to the law that Thatcher had when she convened a court on spec at midnight to sequester the miners assets.

bills in parliament, laws, are dry abstract things. the political will to enforce something is something quite different.

similarly - i'm sure you can prove that the first world war English generals were as good as generals anywhere. however when i think of the half dozen young men whom my family lost in that conflict, i can't help bur believe a different ckass of human being would not have consigned them to their deaths.

you may feel my mind is closed. i think your analyses are naively quantitative.

in qualitative, substantive terms - England didn't do the morally right thing about Irish independence. And the first world war generals were a gang of shits.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 10:08 AM

But the meanings of words evolve. Mournful resistance, of the kind put up by akenaton to the modern sense of "gay" which all bar a few troglodytes accept, is useless. The evolution of language is a very democratic process, and po-faced language pedants generally come across as idiotic, wannabe tin-pot dictators. There are some losses I do fret about, such as the useful distinction between "disinterested" and "uninterested," but when I looked into it I discovered that there was never a "rule" governing their usage in the first place. Never a rule about splitting infinitives either (most people who bemoan "split infinitives" actually harbour a faulty notion of what an infinitive is in the first place). Same with "decimation."

Well, Teribus, if I'd shown that last post of mine to a hundred people, I wonder how many wouldn't have realised that my use of "irregardless" was sarcastic. Had you been excluded from the hundred, the answer would have been none. With you included, the answer is one. You. By the way, as we've never met you can't possibly know about my teaching techniques. Standing at the front talking at people was never my style, I'll tell you that much. As for the importance of accuracy, I couldn't agree more. So I'm just wondering how, according to you, a bare-faced lie turned into a passing remark...

"Albeit" is never necessary, as "though" or "although" will always do the job. It's just pretentious. And, believe it or not, "irregardless" is a real word. Just not one I'd be wanting to use.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 09:08 AM

You can't fight it alone. It's fine to occasionally split infinitives and always was, it's fine to say "hopefully" and always was, and we can use words in any way we like irregardless of the opinions of others.
I'm not trying to fight it. I also realise that we can use words in any way we like. Much like Humpty Dumpty in "Through the looking glass".
But if we do so we lose the main function of language, which is the sharing of information. That sharing of information requires a common vocabulary where words have a common and accepted meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 09:03 AM

"we can use words in any way we like irregardless of the opinions of others"

Of course you can and do Shaw. But there again you have spent most of your "working" life talking at people, not talking to them.

If you wish to put a point over to someone, or argue a case, you have to be very exact and accurate in what you say because you knowing what you mean counts for S.F.A. in any dialogue, the point of which should be to make sure the person you are talking TO understands fully what you mean by what you have said.

Nothing whatsoever wrong with using "albeit" ( alternative to using "even though" or "although") which is more than I can say for "irregardless" which most dictionaries list as being nonstandard or incorrect, and recommend that "regardless" should be used instead. Perhaps you should have used "irrespective" instead? You probably didn't because you never respect anything anyone else says unless they are in total agreement with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 07:45 AM

I wasn't being condescending (I was accepting what you said, actually), I wasn't wrong and I know that synonyms are not interchangeable, Nigel, though they do help to steer towards good word usage. Now I'd far sooner go down this line of argument than revisit those sterile old arguments about the Troubles, etc., but it would be more pleasant if you could just drop your dog-with-bone stance for a minute or two. We're not writing legalese here, we're using language as informally and idiomatically as possible whilst trying to maintain the rules of grammar. Words are not set in stone, at least not since Moses went up the mountain. Their meanings evolve, some senses become less popular, others gain ascendancy. You can't fight it alone. It's fine to occasionally split infinitives and always was, it's fine to say "hopefully" and always was, and we can use words in any way we like irregardless of the opinions of others. 😉 Just never use "albeit" or "on a daily basis" or "prior to" in my presence!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 07:00 AM

Thank you for your condescension: Interesting that you think I can decimate birds but not weeds, but we can let that one go I suppose.
You don't need to 'let it go'. You could just admit that you're wrong.
And don't try to back up your suppositions by using the thesaurus:
Synonyms of "decimation" from Merriam-Webster, Bill. Are you ready?

annihilation, destruction, demolishment, demolition, desolation, devastation, extermination, extinction, havoc, loss, mincemeat, obliteration, ruin, ruination, wastage, wreckage
A thesaurus gives words 'similar in meaning to' the chosen word. This is to allow you to choose the most suitable word. The words in any particular group are not all interchangeable.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 06:35 AM

"You have produced nothing new."
I said at the beginning that this had been covered ad nauseum and that the violence in Ireland eminated from the Loyalist refusal to accept a United Ireland.
You have been given all this information before - the militarising of the Unionists, their introduction of weapons into the county, the treatment of Catholics under Protestant rule, the triumphalist sectarian marches, the collusion of the RUC in violently crushing of Civil rights protests....
All old news and all contradicted by your and Teribus's denials.
You have never at any time "knocked down" any of them - on the contrary, you have both slunk off with your bigoted jingoistic tails between your legs as you are attempting to do now.
You refuse to respond to historical facts and refuse to produce your own, and when you run out of excuses, you do a runner.
The only thing the pair of you are fit for is as examples of ongoing British Blimpish jingoism.
The pair of you remain a standing joke that would be more at home on the pages of PUNCH MAGAZINE and the like
You are a pair of friggin' anachronisms
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 05:42 AM

That's fine then, Nigel. You have accepted that word meaning and usage can evolve, or at least be flexible, and that "decimate" can be used legitimately away from its one-in-ten sense. In fact, that usage has always been available for that word since it first appeared in English, as has its usage for tithing, though the latter usage is now more or less defunct. I can only suggest that demurrers do the scholarship. Interesting that you think I can decimate birds but not weeds, but we can let that one go I suppose.

Now, have a little word in Teribus's shell-like....🗣👂🏻

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 05:16 AM

No Jim.
You have produced nothing new.
I know all your arguments and you know how they have all been knocked down on previous threads.

If you have a particular "boring facts about the origins of violence in Northern Ireland," put it up and have it knocked down again, but it will only be of interest to us. No-one else will read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 04:57 AM

Incidentally Keith
You have just been presented with more "boring facts" about the origins of violence in Northern Ireland
I assume that your efforts to end this discussion are not unrelated to your and your fick mate's inability to respond to them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 04:46 AM

How about "poor farming practices have decimated the songbird population in the last fifty years?" Are your eyebrows raised? It's what people say, Nigel, and any lingusitics guru worth his or her salt will tell you that that's all that matters.
That's better than your example about weeds, and yes, I would accept that if I read it. The meaning has expanded to mean 'destroy a large percentage of, rather than kill 10%, but the various dictionaries still relate it to people, animals, or other creatures. I still think you'd be laughed at for using it to refer to plantlife.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 04:29 AM

"You have made it clear that your mind is closed to such boring facts, so let's please Jeri and drop it."
Jeri hasn't asked the subject to be dropped, but I can see why you have
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 02:51 AM

Al, like most folk of our generation I once shared your view of WW1.
Historical knowledge has moved on, and I have just followed it.
Nothing published in the last twenty of years supports those myths many still believe. Teribus and I have just related what any historian now will tell you. Read a book.

Irish history is different. Their is an industry devoted to sustaining historical myths.
No-one can deny that a home rule bill was passed in 1914.
No-one can deny that Britain wanted Ireland to remain united after home rule but the North refused to accept it and were fully prepared to fight.
I accept that the heroic narrative of brave Republican Davids overcoming the British Empire Goliath is a much more appealing story.

You have made it clear that your mind is closed to such boring facts, so let's please Jeri and drop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 02:05 AM

"Queer" was too pejorative and "Gay" has simply become viewed as being the same.

The Jeremy Thorpe trial threw up some entertaining alternatives IIRC, pity they didn't catch on.

By the way Shaw, I thought it was you who set yourself up as the Lexicon King. Not my problem at all if people abuse and misuse words and rob them of their meaning, all that does is display ignorance and completely corrupt what the person using it was trying to say (As Jim did when he introduced the word to this thread).

Not surprised that you and Carroll follow this line it assists you in the misrepresentations you try to put across.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:34 PM

But Jim, we must always attend to the ex cathedra word of the mighty Teribus, king of the lexicon! If he says that a usage that doesn't suit him is "modern, over-emotive twaddle," who are we to demur! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:29 PM

The wiki entry for "gay" is intriguing. It seems that the word may have been used for homosexual in the late 19th century.   It was a long road for the word in the 20th century before it became universally adopted for that sense by the latter part of the century. "Queer" was too pejorative and "homosexual" was too clinical, so "gay," being neither, fitted the bill very well. There is no sense that the word was deliberately or suddenly usurped by the gay community, contrary to what our ignorant and bigoted friend thinks. Of course, no-one has to believe wiki. We can always choose to believe akenaton instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:27 PM

This, from 'The Oxford Book of Word Origins' (entitled 'The Insect that Stole Butter')
I would recommend anybody who hasn't got a copy of this should get their hands on one.
It's probable one of the most entertaining books on our shelves, not to mention useful
Jim Carroll

""DECIMATE [LME] When Roman legions mutinied, they would be decimated—one in every ten men would be selected by lot and executed. In its first recorded use in English, in the late 16th century, decimate refers to this practice, but by the mid 17th century people were using it of other acts of killing, destroying, or removing one in ten. They then lost sight of the military context, and soon any severe loss or destruction could be described as decimation. See also DECADE""
("LME stands for Latin Middle English, by the way)

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:15 PM

Synonyms of "decimation" from Merriam-Webster, Bill. Are you ready?

annihilation, destruction, demolishment, demolition, desolation, devastation, extermination, extinction, havoc, loss, mincemeat, obliteration, ruin, ruination, wastage, wreckage

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 06:04 PM

Modern over-emotive twaddle? Give over, Bill. You're the past master when it comes to changing the meanings of words! Why, you transformed Keith's downright lie to a mere "passing reference!" Anyway, you say tomayto, I'll say Solanum lycopersicum. Or pomodoro. Or love apple. Or tomato at a pinch (preferably a pinch of chilli flakes and a finely-sliced garlic clove, a half-teaspoon of sugar and a pinch of salt, simmered with extra virgin olive oil for half an hour, not forgetting to add a handful of torn basil leaves for the last two minutes). Don't challenge me on words, Billy boy. Even the much-lamented MGM came to grief via that endeavour. You are welcome to look up the etymology and historical usage of decimate. Everything I've said is correct. Check it out! Good luck!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: bobad
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:53 PM

Boo, YOU are "the other guy"

Lol, funny, I was thinking it was you 😵

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:09 PM

lets just leave that it doesn't mean to be kind and supportive and buy a nice box of chocolates for the party in question.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:09 PM

Everybody thinks it's the other guy.

Boo, YOU are "the other guy".

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:00 PM

"decimate has been used since time immemorial to mean to lay waste to, to severely damage, to annihilate or to devastate, without particular reference to one-in-ten." - Steve Shaw

No it hasn't. That meaning is modern over-emotive twaddle.

As a means of punishment and enforcing discipline it was measured so as NOT to affect the fighting capability of the unit - NOTHING even remotely close to:

- Lay waste to;
- severely damage;
- annihilation (total destruction);
- devastation.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 03:52 PM

in truth Martin McGuinness was a controversial character. I think some sort of do with 'fists flying and biddies crying' is just being properly respectful.

How the decimalisation crept in, is anyone's guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: bobad
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 02:52 PM

Everybody thinks it's the other guy.............lol.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Stu
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 02:42 PM

"Mostly those folks who hope to discuss a subject without the obsessives taking it over again. Good luck. As long as they're still here, most political threads are their bitch."

Sums it up perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM

"THIS moderator bails whenever a thread is taken over by assholes and turned into just another chapter of the Jim & Keith show."
The way you insult members of this forum, maybe it's just as well
You may be happy to see racists run riot without being challenged Jeri, I am not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 02:04 PM

THIS moderator bails whenever a thread is taken over by assholes and turned into just another chapter of the Jim & Keith show. Shut up, talk about the subject, or I-don't-give-a-shit.

...actually I don't. This is somebody else's problem. Mostly those folks who hope to discuss a subject without the obsessives taking it over again. Good luck. As long as they're still here, most political threads are their bitch.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 02:01 PM

How on earth has a thread about Martin McGuiness turned into a discussion about the common use of English words?

I guess someone decimated it

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 01:58 PM

How on earth has a thread about Martin McGuiness turned into a discussion about the common use of English words?

On second thoughts I am probably better off not knowing. I suspect a certain amount of not picking was involved. Probably by the people who whinge about staying on topic.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 01:42 PM

Face it, Jim. We're surrounded by 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 01:37 PM

"I didn't say there was anything wrong with the word gay, it expresses very well the feeling of happiness and joy."
Yes you did - you said it was used as a smokescreen - why shouuld anybody have need for such a thing?
You really need to stay at the bottom of the loch where all good dinosaurs should be confined to make the world safe for human beings
"Gay" activists didn't like homosexuals being defined by their sexual behaviour and decided to purloin the word gay"
That's a load of distateful crap too - as the definition points out, the term was in use long before homosexuals could openly express their homosexuality without the law being used against them
You paint the picture of a secret plot.
Jesus - you are a distasteful piece of work
"the British Government could have swamped Ireland with masses of the 5 million men it had under arms"
The worst incident of this perid w
Crap history again you bend the facts to suit the agenda.
You carefully forget to mention that on 24 April 1915 the Unionists had SMUGGLED ARMS into Irelandto be used against Republicans if there was any chance of a United Ireland.
Any action the Republicans used can be quite safely declared self defensive.
"As early as 1893, plans were floated to raise 2,000-4,000 men, to drill as soldiers in Ulster. Many Ulster Unionists interpreted the southern and western violence directed against land grievances as pro-Home Rule (and thus believed Home Rule was appeasement of this violence), and resolved to defy the government militarily."
"In 1912 the Ulster Volunteers. They were formed from 100,000 local militia and were reviewed marching by Carson that April. The Unionist Council reorganised the volunteers in January 1913 into the paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), who threatened to resist by physical force the implementation of the Act and the authority of any restored Dublin Parliament by force of arms, fearing that Dublin rule would mean the ascendency of Catholicism—in the words of one MP, that "'home rule' in Ireland would prove to be 'Rome Rule'."[17] In 1912 the Ulster Volunteers. They were formed from 100,000 local militia and were reviewed marching by Carson that April. The Unionist Council reorganised the volunteers in January 1913 into the paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), who threatened to resist by physical force the implementation of the Act and the authority of any restored Dublin Parliament by force of arms, fearing that Dublin rule would mean the ascendency of Catholicism—in the words of one MP, that "'home rule' in Ireland would prove to be 'Rome Rule'."
The events of 1919 came 26 years after the Unionists had armed themselves, trained their forces and made ready for war
The worst incident of the period took place in Desertmartin, County Derry in 1922 and toppd the killing of the two policemen by a mile

Desertmartin, County Derry
The attack and the killings by Specials in Desertmartin on 19 May 1922 was one of the worst sectarian incidents during this period. Two Specials started a small fire in a large four-storey mill in the village; the plan was to take credit for having discovered it, put it out and place the blame on the mainly nationalist population of the village. The fire, however, got out of control and the mill was gutted. The Specials responsible for setting the fire claimed to have seen two men running away from the scene, and this was sufficient excuse for Specials from the area and from nearby Magherafelt to loot and burn Catholic-owned homes and shops in Desertmartin. Where it was not possible to burn a house, because of adjacent Protestant neighbours, furniture and possessions were throw into the street and became part of a bonfire. While this mayhem was going on in the village, a number of Specials, in uniform, went to the homes of the Catholic McGeehan and Higgins families, took two sets of brothers out to a lonely country lane, lined them up against a ditch and riddled them with bullets. The Sunday after this slaughter four hearses brought their remains to Coolcalm church in Desertmartin, where they were interred in a single grave. At the inquest into their deaths the police admitted that they were respectable men who had never previously come to their notice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 01:21 PM

Linguistics. Why didn't my over-fussy spell-checker pick that up!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 01:20 PM

Ever wish you hadn't mentioned something? Sheesh.



Nigel, this isn't me saying this, but decimate has been used since time immemorial to mean to lay waste to, to severely damage, to annihilate or to devastate, without particular reference to one-in-ten. It's also been used in the one-in-ten punishment sense. Neither attracts comment in my experience, either by horny-handed sons of toil down the allotments or by anyone else.

How about "poor farming practices have decimated the songbird population in the last fifty years?" Are your eyebrows raised? It's what people say, Nigel, and any lingusitics guru worth his or her salt will tell you that that's all that matters. King Canutes like you and akenaton can't stop the language evolving, and I'll drink to that. Perhaps a small glass of Mount Gay rum.

And Keith, I don't care how you interpret my remarks. I'm not even reading your exceptionally tedious and repetitive posts much at all these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 01:03 PM

Teribus - the English government has many years and many opportunities to divest itself of Ireland.

it hasn't.

as our history proves when want to do something, we will.

when the alchemists produced formulae to prove they could make gold, eventually they accepted they were wrong. after centuries....

if your facts come up with a conclusion that is obviously bollocks. then somewhere along the line - you have to accept you have got it wrong.

i don't have centuries to spend on this nonsense. you remind me of a kid in our first year class exam at the grammar school who proved that the escalator at KIngs Cross Station was moving at 60mph. the teacher couldn't convince him his calculation was wrong. but with most of us commonsense kicks in.

think of all those days and years, when no English politician said - right this week, this month we'll get rid of fucking Ireland. between 1914 and now......and yet you insist it was a prime intention.

in the bowels of Christ...consider that you might be wrong.

and while you're at it consider some of the names on a cenotaph near you and think - did the commanders of these men give due consideration to how those lives were expended? common fucking sense tells most of us - they got it mega wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 12:28 PM

I didn't say there was anything wrong with the word gay, it expresses very well the feeling of happiness and joy.

The problem is that it is now never used in its proper context, people feel intimidated by its new association.   We have lost one of the nicest words in the English language.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 12:14 PM

Big Al Whittle - 27 Mar 17 - 11:49 AM

Keith and Teribus....is history really your thing?

so far we've had the caring side of first world war generals, now England's sefless struggle for Irish independence....

Well it would certainly seem to be more our thing than yours Big Al.

By any metric you wish to measure success by those who commanded the British, Commonwealth and Empire forces during the First World War did so far better than those who commanded any of the other combatant armies of 1914. As an enlisted soldier or officer you stood a far better chance on surviving the conflict as part of the British Armed Forces than you would being in either the French, German, or Russian Armies. Now if you wish to refute that then address the facts not the person telling you about them.

When in January 1919 two police officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary escorting a consignment of explosives to a quarry were deliberately murdered in cold blood by the IRA and Sinn Fein declared independence the British Government could have swamped Ireland with masses of the 5 million men it had under arms, all combat hardened veterans straight from the 100 days offensive that swept the Germans before them and ended the war - They didn't Big Al because they had already decided immediately before the war to grant Home Rule with Dominion status to Ireland. Sinn Fein and the "men of the gun" apparently so admired by the likes of yourself and Carroll completely screwed that process up and demonstrated to the political leadership of the Northern Unionists precisely what complete and utter wankers they were. There was NO glorious and bloody guerrilla war fought in the South against the Brits it didn't amount to more than sporadic skirmishes before the Republican side ran out of steam and a truce was called. The Government of Great Britain could have ignored the calls for peace talks BUT they didn't. The talks were held that resulted in the Anglo-Irish Treaty which became the Irish Free State Constitution Act of 1922 - the Government of Great Britain having signed off on it in December 1921 a full year before the clowns in Dublin finally ratified it (That delay Big Al was all down to the Irish who had decided that they wanted to fight and kill one another in a totally pointless civil war). No reluctance at all on the part of "England" to let Ireland go and the proof of that is there for all to see - if history WAS really your thing, but as I said at the beginning as far as you are concerned it obviously isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 11:41 AM

"Rubbish, it was simply a smokescreen to obscure the true meaning of the word homosexual."
Homophobis rubbish - t was used among gays, not to hide anything from anybody
Your raving homophobia is once more confirmed by your claiming that we need a "nicer" term for a natural human condition - what on earth is not nice about being gay
You really are the pits of humanity (sic) Ake - nowt nice about your brand of gender hatred
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 11:27 AM

Rubbish, it was simply a smokescreen to obscure the true meaning of the word homosexual.

"Gay" activists didn't like homosexuals being defined by their sexual behaviour and decided to purloin the word gay.

Unfortunately for them we are all defined in sexual terms by our orientation. Should we find a nice user friendly word to describe our heterosexuality?    Or are we all adults here?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 11:16 AM

Steve, if your version of "decimate" is accepted, then I was right to deny Jim's claim about British soldiers in WW1.
Also McGrath was wrong to correct me.

Thanks for you impartiality in contradicting them and supporting me.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 11:08 AM

According to 'The Insect that Stole Butter (Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins,) "gay" was fully in use in the 1930s among homosexuals, but there are indications that it is earlier than this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 10:44 AM

Apparently not, according to the dictionary definition
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 10:37 AM

Yes, Larry Grayson used to use the catchphrase "What a gay day". But despite the campness of his act I never associated his use of the word 'gay' with anything other than 'carefree and cheerful'.