Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On Apr 12, 2:21 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 06:17:36 -0700, "Cavello" wrote: British islands - adjective and noun; islands that are British. That includes all of Great Britain, many small islands and part of the island of Ireland. British Isles - geographic name of an archipelago off the coast of Europe, comprising Great Britain, Ireland and many small islands. Try and understand the difference. Try to understand the similarity, more like. Try also to understand that if most people in a country don't want to have their country labeled one of the 'British Isles', don't do it. I am not labelling a country. I am labelling an island, which in case it had escaped your attention has two countries on it - one of which is very happy to accept the label. No, it didn't escape my attention. I live here. It's recent history seems to have spectacularly escaped your attention though - anyone who thinks it an accurate description of reality to say that the people of Northern Ireland are 'very happy' to be in the British Isles is some clown indeed. About sixty percent of them are, but the other forty percent sure aren't. They couldn't agree on the colour of the sky, so 'very happy' hardly ever enters into any discussion up there. But get back to the fact that the vast majority of people in Ireland (the country, which is what I have been talking about all along) don't accept this term 'British Isles', and you're still the guy trying to foist a geographic term on people who don't want it. Think up a new name of these islands. Your politics has clouded your reason. Politics and reason aren't mututally exclusive. My politics is that I'm an Irish person. And like most Irish people, I'm of the view that the term 'British Isles' should not be used to include the country I live in. For that reason, I think people who use the term in that way should cease. d -- Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On Apr 12, 7:11 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 05:04:03 -0700, "Cavello" wrote: 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. No, it doesn't. It is not within your power to decide that Ireland is not part of the British Isles group. You are in disagreement with geology, and I'm afraid geology wins. If you want to change it, you must find a way to detach Ireland from the group and float it away somewhere else. 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. Please understand; you can't vote for geology - it isn't a democracy. It is a physical fact. Maybe many people in Southern Ireland don't much like the fact that they live in the British Isles, but that is tough, I'm afraid. Their only option is to move elsewhere. They can call it something else all they like, but just doing so cannot change the simple fact. The island of Ireland is the second largest island in the group called the British Isles. d -- Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Fly poop to the right, pepper to the left. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On Apr 12, 4:17 pm, Eeyore
wrote: Cavellowrote: Don Pearce wrote: Try and understand the difference. Try to understand the similarity, more like. Try also to understand that if most people in a country don't want to have their country labeled one of the 'British Isles', don't do it. So what group of island is Nothern Ireland part of ? I couldn't care less. That's not part of my country. It is legally part of the 'British Islands' so if you want to also include it in the British Isles, go ahead. Just don't include Ireland. Graham |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On 12 Apr 2007 11:17:14 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:
On Apr 12, 2:21 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote: On 12 Apr 2007 06:17:36 -0700, "Cavello" wrote: British islands - adjective and noun; islands that are British. That includes all of Great Britain, many small islands and part of the island of Ireland. British Isles - geographic name of an archipelago off the coast of Europe, comprising Great Britain, Ireland and many small islands. Try and understand the difference. Try to understand the similarity, more like. Try also to understand that if most people in a country don't want to have their country labeled one of the 'British Isles', don't do it. I am not labelling a country. I am labelling an island, which in case it had escaped your attention has two countries on it - one of which is very happy to accept the label. No, it didn't escape my attention. I live here. It's recent history seems to have spectacularly escaped your attention though - anyone who thinks it an accurate description of reality to say that the people of Northern Ireland are 'very happy' to be in the British Isles is some clown indeed. About sixty percent of them are, but the other forty percent sure aren't. They couldn't agree on the colour of the sky, so 'very happy' hardly ever enters into any discussion up there. But get back to the fact that the vast majority of people in Ireland (the country, which is what I have been talking about all along) don't accept this term 'British Isles', and you're still the guy trying to foist a geographic term on people who don't want it. Think up a new name of these islands. ********. They have a perfectly good name that has stood since long before you arrived from north Africa, Scotland or Norway. Your politics has clouded your reason. Politics and reason aren't mututally exclusive. They are in Ireland - have been for a hundred years. My politics is that I'm an Irish person. And like most Irish people, I'm of the view that the term 'British Isles' should not be used to include the country I live in. For that reason, I think people who use the term in that way should cease. Sorry old chap - that simply isn't your choice, you'll just have to keep wishing. But saying a thing is so doesn't make it so, I'm afraid. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On 12 Apr 2007 11:17:52 -0700, "Peter Wieck" wrote:
Fly poop to the right, pepper to the left. Anyone got a clue? d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On Apr 12, 4:16 pm, Eeyore
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: British islands - adjective and noun; islands that are British. That includes all of Great Britain, many small islands and part of the island of Ireland. I suppose this means that the name of the island changes as you cross the border from the North to the South. Well, you're on the island of Ireland regardless of which side of the border you're on - no-one disputes that. You're also in Ulster on both sides of the border depending on where you cross the border (along some of the border, you actually leave Ulster when you walk out of Northern Ireland into Ireland), and under British law, you're in 'the British Islands' if you walk across the border into Northern Ireland but obviously you're not in the 'British Islands' if you're in Ireland, i.e. on the southern side of the border. To add to the confusion, the northern most point in Ireland is north of the northern most point in Northern Ireland. Couldn't be simpler Graham |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On Apr 12, 4:15 pm, Eeyore
wrote: Cavellowrote: That's not what I'm saying either. I don't care if the group of islands has a name or not. I'm simply pointing out that the British Isles doesn't include Ireland. The term does exist, but it doesn't include Ireland. LOL ! I believe this is what's often called 'having a paddy' ! I'm not familiar with the expression. But I detect a racial slur coming on. Graham |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On Apr 12, 4:12 pm, Eeyore
wrote: Cavellowrote: I'm not objecting to Ireland being in this group of islands. I'm pleased to hear that. You'd have some serious problems otherwise. I'm from the Isle of Man btw. An independent country. We have no trouble with being part of the British Isles. What's yours ? We're not British. Neither is our country. So the term 'British Isles' is inaccurate. Like I said, I could just as legitimately call Britain an 'Irish Isle'. I'm interested in the status of the Isle of Mann. Is it really an 'independent country'? I mean, does it have it's own foreign minister and diplomats or does it leave the task of external relations up to London? Is it a member of the UN? Does it have its own soccer team that plays in international competitions? I'm not saying it must have these in order to be a country, I'm just asking. Graham |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On 12 Apr 2007 11:30:55 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:
On Apr 12, 4:12 pm, Eeyore wrote: Cavellowrote: I'm not objecting to Ireland being in this group of islands. I'm pleased to hear that. You'd have some serious problems otherwise. I'm from the Isle of Man btw. An independent country. We have no trouble with being part of the British Isles. What's yours ? We're not British. Neither is our country. So the term 'British Isles' is inaccurate. Like I said, I could just as legitimately call Britain an 'Irish Isle'. I'm interested in the status of the Isle of Mann. Is it really an 'independent country'? I mean, does it have it's own foreign minister and diplomats or does it leave the task of external relations up to London? Is it a member of the UN? Does it have its own soccer team that plays in international competitions? I'm not saying it must have these in order to be a country, I'm just asking. It certainly has its own government, raises its own taxes and isn't a member of the EU. I think that must qualify it as being its own country. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On Apr 12, 4:14 pm, Eeyore
wrote: Cavellowrote: I'm merely pointing out to you that *calling* this group of islands "the British Isles" is objectionable to most Irish people. It's also a term not used by the Irish government. So what do they call it ? They don't call it anything, instead referring to 'Ireland and Britain', or else they use the term 'These islands' or 'the Isles' or 'IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic)', but none of these terms has really taken hold yet. These are some of the terms mostly used in joint statements by the British and Irish governments any time they meet to discuss Northern Ireland. The British Government tends to steer well clear of using the term, at least when Northern Ireland is the topic of discussion. The British Governments legal definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't include Ireland. Yes it does unless Northern Irelanders get a different passport to a standard UK one. I'm referring to Ireland the country, not Ireland the island. The term 'British Islands' does include Northern Ireland. Northern Irelanders get the same UK passport as anyone else in Britain so far as I know, but of course they're also entitled to an Irish passport. Graham |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On 12 Apr 2007 11:36:07 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:
On Apr 12, 4:14 pm, Eeyore wrote: Cavellowrote: I'm merely pointing out to you that *calling* this group of islands "the British Isles" is objectionable to most Irish people. It's also a term not used by the Irish government. So what do they call it ? They don't call it anything, instead referring to 'Ireland and Britain', or else they use the term 'These islands' or 'the Isles' or 'IONA (Islands of the North Atlantic)', but none of these terms has really taken hold yet. These are some of the terms mostly used in joint statements by the British and Irish governments any time they meet to discuss Northern Ireland. The British Government tends to steer well clear of using the term, at least when Northern Ireland is the topic of discussion. Iona? Perfect. That is already a British island, just off the larger island of Mull. And of course there are plenty of other Islands of the North Atlantic. I am from the Faroe Islands, which I believe would have a far better claim on the term as they are surrounded by the North Atlantic - unlike the British Isles. The British Governments legal definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't include Ireland. Yes it does unless Northern Irelanders get a different passport to a standard UK one. I'm referring to Ireland the country, not Ireland the island. The term 'British Islands' does include Northern Ireland. Northern Irelanders get the same UK passport as anyone else in Britain so far as I know, but of course they're also entitled to an Irish passport. So what's the problem? It seems that you have everything you could possibly want. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On Apr 12, 4:10 pm, Eeyore
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: "Cavello" wrote: 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. No, it doesn't. It is not within your power to decide that Ireland is not part of the British Isles group. You are in disagreement with geology, and I'm afraid geology wins. If you want to change it, you must find a way to detach Ireland from the group and float it away somewhere else. What amuses me aboutCavello's'argument' is that, should at some time in the future The Republic of Ireland choose to re-establish Union with the UK, would the island of Ireland now once again become a British Isle ? Despite Bertie Ahern making some comment about rejoining the Commonwealth, but there was almost zero appetite for it, so the possibility of rejoining the Union is even more remote. So the issue doesn't arise. If it ever did, becoming part of Britain wouldn't leave much room for not being a British Isle. By the same token of course, not being part of Britain makes the notion that Ireland is part of the British Isles a daft one. This shows his argument to be purely a political one. In any case Nothern Ireland is part of Britain, so maybe the Republicans would like to saw off their bit at the frontier and float it further into the Atlantic ? I don't know what you mean by 'Republicans'. In Ireland, and indeed in Northern Ireland, the term denotes the IRA. They'd like to saw off every British flagpole in Northern Ireland and every red pillar box, and probably a few Unionist heads while they're at it. Those of us in the Republic who respect the right of the population of Northern Ireland to remain in Britain and are generally sick of the IRA have often thought how nice it'd be to saw Northern Ireland off, put a few outboard motors on it, and send it out into the Atlantic. Graham |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On Apr 12, 3:54 pm, Rob wrote:
Cavellowrote: On Apr 12, 1:42 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote: On 12 Apr 2007 05:35:23 -0700, "Cavello" wrote: On Apr 12, 1:18 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote: On 12 Apr 2007 05:15:48 -0700, "Cavello" wrote: On Apr 12, 11:00 am, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom 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 the British Isles? You seem to be implying that Ireland is in the British Isles. This is not the case, as most Irish person would be quick to remind you. Sure it is. Look at a map. It isn't part of the political grouping "United Kingdom of Great Britan and Northern Ireland". But that's quite another matter. The Irish government doesn't recognise the term. The British government's definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't include Ireland, and most Irish people object to the use of the term. So no amount of maps you could show me make any difference. It should be clear that calling places by names that the people who live there doesn't approve of should not be done. Now you are simply demonstrating ignorance. Go do some reading - particularly find a decent atlas. In what way am I demonstrating ignorence? Look up what the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, Dermot Ahern, has said on the matter. Look up what the British Goverment defines 'British Islands' as under British law. Ask a few Irish people what they think most Irish people would have to say on the matter. No atlas overturns any of these. You demonstrated ignorence in another post about something as easily verifiable as the name of Ireland, so I won't be lectured by you. I think you will find that the rantings of a Jackanapes politician can be safely ignored. Well, he was asked a question about Irish government policy and he answered it. As for the 'Jackanapes' politicians who passed the law that says Ireland isn't considered part of the British Islands, you can't ignore them either. Bizarre thread! Not that bizarre. Do a search of past usenet discussions. This same argument has been had a thousand times. The Irish always win it of course, cos we're usually up against Brits that never even considered the possibility that Irish people didn't like this 'British Isles' carry-on. Ireland is not a 'British island'. It's a European island. Ireland is an island split into two parts in 1921. Ironically, the north ended up/remained as part of the UK. It's carried on that way by dint of British military occupation, English political will and Unionist majority activity. As these three things slide, a united and autonomous Ireland is on the cards, I feel. You're forgetting the fourth ingredient necessary for a United Ireland - the agreement of a majority in the Republic. We don't want it. We've spent too long building our economy to become the fifth richest in terms of GDP per head (several places ahead of Britain as it happens) to have it destroyed by replaying the Troubles. Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams are about to go into government. It's almost impossible to believe what we are seeing. The last thing we need is a United Ireland to upset the apple cart all over again. Rob- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On Apr 12, 4:00 pm, Eeyore
wrote: Rob wrote: Bizarre thread! Ireland is not a 'British island'. It's a European island. It's an island far off the European coastline. There is simply no accepted meaning of 'European islands', so your description is meaningless. So is the term 'British Isles' used to include Ireland. It's not an accepted meaning here either. European Islands would be acceptable to me, what's your objection to it? Graham |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On Apr 12, 2:07 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On 12 Apr 2007 06:04:05 -0700, "Cavello" wrote: And it isn't "British Islands", it is "British Isles". The 'British Islands' is the term used by the British Government in law, and doesn't include Ireland. Which is precisely why this conversation is about the British Isles, which does. Not according to most Irish people. And as I said, it's pretty offensive to use terms to describe places with the permission of the people who live there. I do live there (the British Isles), and I give myself permission. You don't have the permission of the Irish people to include Ireland in that. Otherwise, I can just declare your back garden part of Ireland and levy you with a mandatory fine of a million quid for not being ten feet tall. Nonsense has a way of never ending once you start. d -- Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On 12 Apr 2007 12:02:28 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:
On Apr 12, 2:07 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote: On 12 Apr 2007 06:04:05 -0700, "Cavello" wrote: And it isn't "British Islands", it is "British Isles". The 'British Islands' is the term used by the British Government in law, and doesn't include Ireland. Which is precisely why this conversation is about the British Isles, which does. Not according to most Irish people. And as I said, it's pretty offensive to use terms to describe places with the permission of the people who live there. I do live there (the British Isles), and I give myself permission. You don't have the permission of the Irish people to include Ireland in that. Otherwise, I can just declare your back garden part of Ireland and levy you with a mandatory fine of a million quid for not being ten feet tall. Nonsense has a way of never ending once you start. So you continue to demonstrate. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On 12 Apr 2007 11:56:31 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:
You're forgetting the fourth ingredient necessary for a United Ireland - the agreement of a majority in the Republic. We don't want it. We've spent too long building our economy to become the fifth richest in terms of GDP per head (several places ahead of Britain as it happens) to have it destroyed by replaying the Troubles. Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams are about to go into government. It's almost impossible to believe what we are seeing. The last thing we need is a United Ireland to upset the apple cart all over again. A united Ireland would indeed be a nightmare. I mean where would we find room to house another hundred MPs in Westminster? I feel that is exactly what you are going to end up with, though. The direction is inexorable. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Cavello wrote: Eeyore wrote: So what group of island is Nothern Ireland part of ? I couldn't care less. That's not part of my country. It's the same island ! It is legally part of the 'British Islands' so if you want to also include it in the British Isles, go ahead. Just don't include Ireland. Both countries are in Ireland. You're referring to the Republic, a purely political distinction. I've never come across an island whose definition changed when crossing a border before ! Graham |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Cavello wrote: Eeyore wrote: Cavellowrote: That's not what I'm saying either. I don't care if the group of islands has a name or not. I'm simply pointing out that the British Isles doesn't include Ireland. The term does exist, but it doesn't include Ireland. LOL ! I believe this is what's often called 'having a paddy' ! I'm not familiar with the expression. But I detect a racial slur coming on. http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_b...ages/1245.html Graham |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Cavello wrote: Eeyore wrote: Cavellowrote: I'm not objecting to Ireland being in this group of islands. I'm pleased to hear that. You'd have some serious problems otherwise. I'm from the Isle of Man btw. An independent country. We have no trouble with being part of the British Isles. What's yours ? We're not British. Neither is our country. So the term 'British Isles' is inaccurate. Like I said, I could just as legitimately call Britain an 'Irish Isle'. But you couldn't. Groups of islands are not named after the 2nd largest ! I'm interested in the status of the Isle of Mann. Man. Is it really an 'independent country'? http://gov.im/ the official website of the Isle of Man Government Note that .im is the 'country code' on the internet. I mean, does it have it's own foreign minister and diplomats or does it leave the task of external relations up to London? Tricky. I know that defence is handled by the UK but since the Isle of Man isn't a member of the EU it looks like they do handle foreign affairs themselves. Is it a member of the UN? Not AFAIK. Does it have its own soccer team that plays in international competitions? It may simply be too small for that. The population is roughly on a par at 80,000 with the town in England where I live. I'm not saying it must have these in order to be a country, I'm just asking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_man http://gov.im/isleofman/ Graham |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Laurence Payne wrote: "Cavello" wrote: When did they move it? Last time I was there it was still firmly attached. Was it? How so? Southern Ireland is the independent state. It is firmly attached to Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom. I've known it as any of these..... The Irish Free State The South Southern Ireland The Republic (of Ireland) Eire. Graham |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Cavello wrote: Laurence Payne wrote: "Cavello" wrote: When did they move it? Last time I was there it was still firmly attached. Was it? How so? Southern Ireland is the independent state. It's called "Ireland or "Eire", or if you want to use the official description "Republic of Ireland". It is firmly attached to Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom. This doesn't make it part of the British Isles. It merely makes it part of the island of Ireland. How does that affect whether the island of Ireland is a British Isle or not though ? Your distinctions above are purely political ones, not geographic. Graham |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Don Pearce wrote: It is the island of Ireland that is part of the British Isles. That is a matter of geography, not politics. Because it is part of the island of Ireland, Eire is part of the British Isles. Why is it so important to you to pretend it is otherwise? They're still cross about William of Orange and Cromwell. Graham |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Don Pearce wrote: And it isn't "British Islands", it is "British Isles". Absolutely correct. British Islands is the political term, British Isles is the geographic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands The term "British Islands" should not be confused with "British Isles". The term British Islands is used in the law of the United Kingdom to refer collectively to the following four states: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the Bailiwick of Jersey; the Bailiwick of Guernsey (including Alderney, Herm, and Sark); and the Isle of Man. Note that the Channel Islands are part of the British Islands even though they are not part of the British Isles. Graham |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Cavello wrote: The 'British Islands' is the term used by the British Government in law, and doesn't include Ireland. Just part of it. Graham |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Cavello wrote: Don Pearce wrote: "Cavello" wrote: Don Pearce wrote: And it isn't "British Islands", it is "British Isles". The 'British Islands' is the term used by the British Government in law, and doesn't include Ireland. Which is precisely why this conversation is about the British Isles, which does. Not according to most Irish people. And as I said, it's pretty offensive to use terms to describe places with the permission of the people who live there. I only wish we could get rid of the equally crazy and argumentative Irish in the North and let you lot take care of the resulting problems ! Graham |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Cavello wrote: Laurence Payne wrote: "Cavello" wrote: The rest of the British Isles? You seem to be implying that Ireland is in the British Isles. This is not the case, as most Irish person would be quick to remind you. Sure it is. Look at a map. It isn't part of the political grouping "United Kingdom of Great Britan and Northern Ireland". But that's quite another matter. The Irish government doesn't recognise the term. The British government's definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't include Ireland, and most Irish people object to the use of the term. No-one is saying that The Republic of Ireland is part of the British Islands. It is however part of the British Isles. A geographical fact. Graham |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Don Pearce wrote: "Cavello" wrote: The Irish government doesn't recognise the term. The British government's definition of the 'British Islands' doesn't include Ireland, and most Irish people object to the use of the term. So no amount of maps you could show me make any difference. It should be clear that calling places by names that the people who live there doesn't approve of should not be done. Now you are simply demonstrating ignorance. Go do some reading - particularly find a decent atlas. I wonder if they have Irish Atlases with different names ? Graham |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Cavello wrote: Look up what the British Goverment defines 'British Islands' as under British law. British Islands =/= British Isles. Graham |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Cavello wrote: Eeyore wrote: Rob wrote: Bizarre thread! Ireland is not a 'British island'. It's a European island. It's an island far off the European coastline. There is simply no accepted meaning of 'European islands', so your description is meaningless. So is the term 'British Isles' used to include Ireland. It's a fact that Ireland is geographically part of the British Isles. It's also a fact that part of Ireland is British. It's not an accepted meaning here either. European Islands would be acceptable to me, what's your objection to it? It's meaningless. It has no geographic value. There are European islands all over the place and it gives no idea of location. In any case for most of all history the British Isles were considered distinct from Europe (the Continent). Graham |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Don Pearce wrote: "Cavello" wrote: You're forgetting the fourth ingredient necessary for a United Ireland - the agreement of a majority in the Republic. We don't want it. We've spent too long building our economy to become the fifth richest in terms of GDP per head (several places ahead of Britain as it happens) to have it destroyed by replaying the Troubles. Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams are about to go into government. It's almost impossible to believe what we are seeing. The last thing we need is a United Ireland to upset the apple cart all over again. A united Ireland would indeed be a nightmare. I mean where would we find room to house another hundred MPs in Westminster? I feel that is exactly what you are going to end up with, though. The direction is inexorable. The ultimate irony here is had the Republicans had a little more patience in the early 20th century they'd have had an independent United Ireland anyway ! Home Rule and all that. Graham |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:40:37 +0100, Eeyore
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: It is the island of Ireland that is part of the British Isles. That is a matter of geography, not politics. Because it is part of the island of Ireland, Eire is part of the British Isles. Why is it so important to you to pretend it is otherwise? They're still cross about William of Orange and Cromwell. Graham Well, as for Cromwell he ****ed us up far worse than he did Ireland. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Laurence Payne wrote: "Cavello" wrote: Well, you learn something new every day, don't you? The reason it's not widely objected to in Ireland is that we hardly ever come across it in Ireland. When we hear 'British Isles', we assume it to mean the UK (Isle of Mann etc), and the nearby islands that belong to the UK. In fact, that's how the British government defines the term 'British Islands'. I've never heard the term "British Islands" beford today. Did you just make it up? It does exist but it's a political term not a geographic one. Clearly an attempt to obfuscate. Graham |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On 12 Apr 2007 10:55:35 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:
On Apr 12, 4:21 pm, Eeyore wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ireland isn't part of the British Isles rather like Tasmania isn't part of Australia. I didn't say Ireland is part of Britain did I ? That would be incorrect. Your comparison is inappropriate The British Isles refers to the many (hundreds) of islands around the island of Great Britain which is the largest of the group. It is a geographical fact that Ireland is one of this group. No-one is disputing that fact. What I am objecting to is the use of the term 'British Isles' to refer to that group. Use the term 'British Isles' to refer to something else, use some other term to refer to the group, but don't use a term that so many Irish people object to and have a pet peeve about. Simple enough point. Now I am going to call you out and show that you are just a liar. In another post, which I have copied and pasted, the conversation went thus: ___________ "Correction. I meant to say "I'm not deciding it's not part of the island group". Why all the grandiloquent nonsense? If what you meant was "I would like the British Isles to have some other name", That's not what I'm saying either. I don't care if the group of islands has a name or not. I'm simply pointing out that the British Isles doesn't include Ireland. The term does exist, but it doesn't include Ireland." ____________ Which is of course the exact opposite of what you say above. You actually have no argument; all you are doing is taking the opposite position to that occupied by anyone from England. You really are a rather pathetic little character, aren't you? You prove yourself unworthy of notice, and enter my killfile. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
On 12 Apr 2007 10:52:35 -0700, "Cavello" wrote:
I wasn't aware of that, and if I'm wrong I do apologise. But two points come to mind: (1) This is what wikipedia has to say on the matter: Can we have YOUR knowledge please, not just what you've dredged up on the notoriously unreliable Wikipedia? |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Hmm, I'm Irish and I live in Ireland. I have also lived in Britain and
have much cause to be grateful to the British, who offered me a place to stay when I was a political exile, and education and wealth and much besides. I do actually know the meanings of all these descriptions of the islands, geographic and political. But I don't care enough to explain to anyone. What I do care about is the appalling manners exhibited by Pearce and Payne and the rest of the Britscum in forcing, in what must now be a hundred messages, down the throat of the unwilling Cavello the notion that they, the British, are the master race. The British are surprisingly well regarded by the minority of thoughtful people around the world, but it is triumphalist trash like you who make the majority of the world hate the British as a class of much poorer ugly Americans. What have you ever done, yourself, to earn the right to such a patronizing attitude? The number of those messages and their repetive, mindless, dull, thugging insistence is a form of bullying. The number of those messages also demonstrates that the British are exceedingly sensitive indeed about their lost Empire. It's jumped-up, overage school bullies like you who caused it to be lost. The public problem with your type of Brit is that you are the most graceless losers in the world; it is just as well your government (of either persausion) doesn't pay any attention to your Gibraltarian chattering. Andre Jute Zero tolerance for overripe school bullies Don Pearce wrote: On 12 Apr 2007 10:52:35 -0700, "Cavello" wrote: On Apr 12, 4:05 pm, Eeyore wrote: Cavellowrote: Laurence Payne wrote I've never known Irish people object seriously to the geographical name. They make it clear they aren't part of the United Kingdom, of course. Well, you learn something new every day, don't you? The reason it's not widely objected to in Ireland is that we hardly ever come across it in Ireland. When we hear 'British Isles', we assume it to mean the UK (Isle of Mann etc), and the nearby islands that belong to the UK. The Isle of Man (note correct spelling) is not part of the UK. I wasn't aware of that, and if I'm wrong I do apologise. But two points come to mind: (1) This is what wikipedia has to say on the matter: "The Crown Dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, formally possessions of the Crown, form a federacy with the United Kingdom collectively known as the British Islands." I have no idea what that means so I'm not saying it's right, but you've caused me to become interested in its precise status. What is its relationship with the UK then? Is it an independent country? (2) It's ironic that you're quick to point out that the Isle of Mann isn't in the UK but insist that Ireland is in the 'British Isles' when few people in Ireland wish it to be termed as such. Quid pro quo? Graham Please try and understand. British Islands is a political description. It does not include your bit. British Isles is a geographic description. It does include your bit. There is no irony in point (2). It really is quite simple. Knock that plank-sized chip off your shoulder and you may yet be able to see it. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Cavello wrote: Eeyore wrote: Cavellowrote: Laurence Payne wrote I've never known Irish people object seriously to the geographical name. They make it clear they aren't part of the United Kingdom, of course. Well, you learn something new every day, don't you? The reason it's not widely objected to in Ireland is that we hardly ever come across it in Ireland. When we hear 'British Isles', we assume it to mean the UK (Isle of Mann etc), and the nearby islands that belong to the UK. The Isle of Man (note correct spelling) is not part of the UK. I wasn't aware of that, and if I'm wrong I do apologise. But two points come to mind: (1) This is what wikipedia has to say on the matter: "The Crown Dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, formally possessions of the Crown, form a federacy with the United Kingdom collectively known as the British Islands." I have no idea what that means so I'm not saying it's right, but you've caused me to become interested in its precise status. What is its relationship with the UK then? Is it an independent country? It's a crown dependency IIRC. Like Guernsey and Jersey for example. Inasmuch as it has its own government, taxes and the like it is indeed effectively independent although the Queen is still head of state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_dependency (2) It's ironic that you're quick to point out that the Isle of Mann isn't in the UK but insist that Ireland is in the 'British Isles' when few people in Ireland wish it to be termed as such. Quid pro quo? There is a difference between the UK which the the Isle of Man is indeed not a part of and the geographical term 'British Isles'. Graham |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: Cavello wrote: Laurence Payne wrote: "Cavello" wrote: When did they move it? Last time I was there it was still firmly attached. Was it? How so? Southern Ireland is the independent state. It's called "Ireland or "Eire", or if you want to use the official description "Republic of Ireland". It is firmly attached to Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom. This doesn't make it part of the British Isles. It merely makes it part of the island of Ireland. How does that affect whether the island of Ireland is a British Isle or not though ? Your distinctions above are purely political ones, not geographic. It's an interesting discussion but you're trying to make a distinction without a difference by claiming a political name assigned to a geographic location is one vs the other. By that I mean, neither 'goddess earth' nor the 'island' itself named the 'geography', humans did. And they did so based on the perceived population and 'politic'. And that's where the 'dispute' arises, not from the 'geography' but the name attached to it as your Irish friends, at least some of them, do not wish to be associated with the term 'British'. The naming of the British Isles is no different in concept to say the Hawaiian Islands or the Shetland Islands. Groups of islands are normally named after the largest or most central / most populated of them. Graham |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
Cavello wrote:
On Apr 12, 3:54 pm, Rob wrote: snip Bizarre thread! Not that bizarre. Do a search of past usenet discussions. This same argument has been had a thousand times. The Irish always win it of course, cos we're usually up against Brits that never even considered the possibility that Irish people didn't like this 'British Isles' carry-on. Bizarre in two senses - within an audio newsgroup, and the curious certainties. Ireland is not a 'British island'. It's a European island. Ireland is an island split into two parts in 1921. Ironically, the north ended up/remained as part of the UK. It's carried on that way by dint of British military occupation, English political will and Unionist majority activity. As these three things slide, a united and autonomous Ireland is on the cards, I feel. You're forgetting the fourth ingredient necessary for a United Ireland - the agreement of a majority in the Republic. We don't want it. Interesting point - but I don't agree. Insofar as anyone can tell support for a united Ireland runs stronger in the Republic than the north (40%/20% respectively). Anecdotally I'd say the Irish vary between ambivalent and 'soft' nationalist/pro-united. From your experience, are there particular social groups in the Republic that tend to favour separate states? We've spent too long building our economy to become the fifth richest in terms of GDP per head (several places ahead of Britain as it happens) to have it destroyed by replaying the Troubles. Distribution of wealth is not too clever, and housing is a major problem for those (many) on low incomes. Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams are about to go into government. It's almost impossible to believe what we are seeing. The last thing we need is a United Ireland to upset the apple cart all over again. I think you can meander into a self-fulfilling prophecy, but yes, there will be trouble ahead (more small 't'). The nature of any tensions should hopefully become clearer through politicians (who are now at least) talking. I was in Barcelona when the Adams/Paisley meeting took place - it was interesting to see the profound significance they attached to the event. Rob |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Come ride with me
flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: flipper wrote: Eeyore wrote: Cavello wrote: Laurence Payne wrote: "Cavello" wrote: When did they move it? Last time I was there it was still firmly attached. Was it? How so? Southern Ireland is the independent state. It's called "Ireland or "Eire", or if you want to use the official description "Republic of Ireland". It is firmly attached to Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom. This doesn't make it part of the British Isles. It merely makes it part of the island of Ireland. How does that affect whether the island of Ireland is a British Isle or not though ? Your distinctions above are purely political ones, not geographic. It's an interesting discussion but you're trying to make a distinction without a difference by claiming a political name assigned to a geographic location is one vs the other. By that I mean, neither 'goddess earth' nor the 'island' itself named the 'geography', humans did. And they did so based on the perceived population and 'politic'. And that's where the 'dispute' arises, not from the 'geography' but the name attached to it as your Irish friends, at least some of them, do not wish to be associated with the term 'British'. The naming of the British Isles is no different in concept to say the Hawaiian Islands or the Shetland Islands. The Shetland that has, through history, been called Inse Catt, Hjaltland, and Zetland? Tell me which of those is the 'geographic' name. Depends on whether the Picts, Norse, or Scotts controlled it at the time. What you mean is that the language changed not the principle. The French call The Channel La Manche too. Groups of islands are normally named after the largest or most central / most populated of them. Because they, or whoever controls them, tend to lay political claim to the rest. Precisely why the independent minded Irish object to it. Hey, it's convention. If someone wants to start giving things new names for political reasons there's a decent chance ppl will cease understanding what they refer to. I'm always amused to see that the Bombay Times never changed its name to the Mumbai Times for instance. To them it's a bit like calling Europe the "German Continent" Never happened. and claiming that's just a 'geographical' name. It's a generic term. You do know what a continent is don't you ? You suppose the French, Italians, Belgians, Dutch, Austrians, and the rest, might object to that? Or the same in reverse? It's the European Continent. Or the continent of Europe. Germany has no special status geographically in it whereas the largest of the British Isles is Britain, hence the name. Obvious really. Graham |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
''pimp my ride'' | Car Audio | |||
Un-Pimp your ride | Audio Opinions | |||
check out my ride | Car Audio | |||
ya gotta have this in your ride..... | Car Audio | |||
MTV's Pimp my ride | Car Audio |