[Cavello]

On Apr 12, 11:11 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 02:45:32 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:





On Apr 12, 9:36 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 01:31:01 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

On Apr 12, 7:19 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 11 Apr 2007 15:02:58 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:

Maybe they'll leave Ireland alone, but the rest of theBritishIsles
will be parking lots and condominiums.

The rest of theBritishIsles? You seem to be implying that Ireland is
in theBritishIsles. This is not the case, as most Irish person would
be quick to remind you.

When did they move it? Last time I was there it was still firmly
attached.

Was it? How so?

Geology seemed to be doing a fine job.

Geology didn't invent the term "British Isles", people did.

That's right - and it happened a long time before anybody had dreamed
up Ireland - it was Hibernia back then. But you can't arbitrarily
decide that a piece of land is not a part of an island group through a
piece of petty parochial politics.

I'm deciding it's not part of the island group. It is. What I am
objecting to is that using the term 'British Isles' to describe that
islan group. I think you've completely misunderstood what I said and I
hope this clarifies it.

Ireland is geologically a part of
the British Isles (Insulas Brittanicas if you insist) and that is
that.

No, it's not. 'British Isles' is the term you use to denote that
island group. It's not a term the vast majority of people who live in
Ireland would use, and on that basis it should not be used. Seeing as
neither the Irish government uses it to include Ireland, nor at this
stage the British government, it's time you caught up with reality.


d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -